| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, this is going to be my last familiar related post tonight.
But the Player Core 2 familiar ability "Item Delivery" seems broken:
Item Delivery: If your familiar is adjacent to you, you can Command it to deliver an item. Instead of its normal 2 actions, your familiar Interacts to take an item you’re holding of light Bulk or less, then takes one move action, then fnally Interacts to pass off the item to another willing creature. It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type
of item (such as alchemical elixir). If your familiar doesn’t reach the target this turn, it holds the item until commanded otherwise. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.
Problem is, familiars shouldn't be able to administer alchemical elixirs. The companion items say that non-companion tagged items can't be used by familiars/companions etc. We have a RAI ruling that familiars can't administer potions, because of the activation requirements, and elixirs have the same activation requirements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2zhNnBhnB0
The way this feat reads, it's intending to provide action compression for familiars assisting with items. However, if it actually works, what it does is stealthily break one of the biggest limits on familiar usage, and I feel like if that was intended it would have been spotlighted instead of having to go, "Hey, I wonder if this interacts with the rules that say you can't do that"
I have a player I would expect to be happy if the less-than-fully-RAW-supported rulings in that video were proven to be no longer reliable, but we'll see how it goes :)
Yep, pretty clear case of an ability making an exception to the general rule.
It's not stealthily breaking a rule. It's wide open and clear making an exception to the rule.
I'd feel more comfortable about that if it wasn't just a parenthetical example.
It says it can use this ability if it has an item that meets the appropriate conditions and then gives a parenthetical example of an item that would not normally fit the appropriate conditions.
We have to extrapolate from that about whether their example is wrong, or if it implies that there's additional abilities granted not mentioned in the text.
|
The parenthetical example is of an item that can be administered to other people. So those are typically potions, elixirs and so on. So the example makes total sense.
This is pretty normal PF2 writing. You have a general rule that you can't do X, and then a specific ability that says "this does X". That's normal and functional, because we have "specific overrides general" as one of the basic rules.
Interestingly, the item has to be administered to another creature at the end, so the familiar can't drink the elixir itself.
The parenthetical example is of an item that can be administered to other people. So those are typically potions, elixirs and so on. So the example makes total sense.
This is pretty normal PF2 writing. You have a general rule that you can't do X, and then a specific ability that says "this does X". That's normal and functional, because we have "specific overrides general" as one of the basic rules.
Interestingly, the item has to be administered to another creature at the end, so the familiar can't drink the elixir itself.
Yeah, clearly if I'm playing RAW then the ability works as specified and the familiar can administer an alchemical elixir because the ability says it can.
But what it really needs is language that says at minimum "It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type including items that have activation requirements and don't have the companion trait"
Because while this has exempted alchemical elixirs, does it also exempt potions? RAW no, potions still require an activation which familiars can't do and there's no parenthetical example about potions. Same with oils, and virtually all other consumable magic items and alchemical tools. They all require activate actions forbidden to familiars.
It seems as written this only exempts elixirs by special mention because it doesn't remove the restriction.
|
|
Yeah, clearly if I'm playing RAW then the ability works as specified and the familiar can administer an alchemical elixir because the ability says it can.
But what it really needs is language that says at minimum "It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type including items that have activation requirements and don't have the companion trait"
Why? RAW says it works, and is nicely in agreement with RAI.
What more do you want? RAW it works and you understand that it's supposed to work. So why does it have to change? For the paranoid case that someone tries to argue really hard that an ability can't do what it clearly says that it can do?
Because while this has exempted alchemical elixirs, does it also exempt potions? RAW no, potions still require an activation which familiars can't do and there's no parenthetical example about potions. Same with oils, and virtually all other consumable magic items and alchemical tools. They all require activate actions forbidden to familiars.
It seems as written this only exempts elixirs by special mention because it doesn't remove the restriction.
This is a problem you are creating, not a problem with the rules.
The ability specifically says that the familiar can administer "appropriate" items. It doesn't say only elixirs, elixirs are just an example. The phrase "such as" means that it's not limited to only that example.
The rules say that the familiar can administer the item if it is of an appropriate type for administering. How can we know which items those are? Because those items would have rules for administering them to other people. For example:
You can only apply an oil to an item or creature within your reach. Because the process is so thorough, it is usually impossible to apply an oil to an unwilling target or an item in the possession of an unwilling target unless that target is paralyzed, petrified, or unconscious.
You can activate a potion with an Interact action as you drink it or feed it to another creature. You can feed a potion only to a creature that is within reach and willing or otherwise so helpless that it can’t resist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? RAW says it works, and is nicely in agreement with RAI.What more do you want? RAW it works and you understand that it's supposed to work. So why does it have to change? For the paranoid case that someone tries to argue really hard that an ability can't do what it clearly says that it can do?
RAW says it works only in the case of elixirs. Not potions, oils, or any other alchemical items. So I'd like it to say something like the text I wrote, that actually allows for the use of items other than elixirs.
General RAW says familiars cant use potions, elixirs, oils, etc.
(that's RAI too, btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2zhNnBhnB0)
The ability says that it can only administer an appropriate item. So until it specifies otherwise, that excludes elixirs, potions, oils, etc. Then it does specifically call out elixirs. It's made no general rule change about what's appropriate, and it's made no other specific exceptions.
The ability specifically says that the familiar can administer "appropriate" items. It doesn't say only elixirs, elixirs are just an example. The phrase "such as" means that it's not limited to only that example.The rules say that the familiar can administer the item if it is of an appropriate type for administering. How can we know which items those are? Because those items would have rules for administering them to other people. For example:
You can only apply an oil to an item or creature within your reach. Because the process is so thorough, it is usually impossible to apply an oil to an unwilling target or an item in the possession of an unwilling target unless...
So yes, it's reasonable to go to the rest of the rules about what are appropriate items, and you'll find that very few are appropriate for familiars.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally familiars can't administer items.
The ability changes that and says that they can.
That's it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with Ximen Bao that's it's not really OK for Paizo to be so loose with rules like this.
IMO it is correct to expect an ability that overrides another hard rule to actually lay out explicitly what parts of the rule remain, and what was overridden.
"Such as an alchemical elixir" is a very unfunny landmine for table arguments when there's a disagreement as to what exactly that permits, and what it does not.
There's even reason to argue that just Manual Dexterity, which gives familiar's all Interacts, could already suffice as a specific override to allow all item Activate feeding.
And TBH, I never expected in a million years for the wording of for the fancy new Item Delivery to actually encourage the reading that Manual Dex is all you need for potion/elixir/etc Activate feeding, but it does.
If the M Dex pre-req before you can select Item Delivery already enables all Activate feeding, the frustrating ambiguity of Item Delivery vanishes.
[...]
But regardless of reading, I don't think using it as a justification to retroactively grant some of its power to a pre-existing ability makes any sense. Sometimes new abilities are just written a little bit weird or imprecise, there's no need to try and divine some sort of underlying wider logic to make them make perfect sense (that often leads to friction elsewhere anyways). Just take the ability for what it says and adjudicate the questionable cases.
Just to lay this contested ruling out for unfamiliar readers.
In the base rules of companion items, it is mentioned that:
You might want to acquire items that benefit a creature that assists you, such as an animal companion, familiar, or bonded animal. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally, these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item.
The familiar ability Manual Dexterity:
Your familiar can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions.
.
A familiar ability is some specific thing you select, in theory any ability granted by them overrides the base companion/familiar rules no problem.
The common community ruling afaik is that M Dex grants all the Manipulate actions, except for Activate (this is what I used to operate under as a player).
When you put that ruling onto paper, it is honestly kinda anti-rules; a specific override like M Dex is both trumping the base "only companion items" but is also being trumped by that same rule block's "never Activate an Item". That half-override is arbitrary. Cherry picking one exact interpretation by inconsistent application of rules.
To be fair/charitable, there is good game balance reason for familiars to blocked from Activates, though that also exists in a "community norm" where GMs nearly never attack familiars, even item-relays.
.
That aside, I recent asked a GM if I could slot Item Delivery to let my familiar feed the Alch PC outside of that one scripted delivery action, and his response was to say "You can already do that with Manual Dexterity."
Aaaand I had no RaW argument against that. The base rules are that companions/familiars can use companion trait items, and other items if a GM approves, but no GM can(should) allow Activate items.
After that, you apply the "two hands to perform manipulate actions," meaning.... exactly what that says. Familiars may have serious bulk issues, but they've got 2 hands and have no other restrictions on their Interact, completely RaW.
.
As far as that GM is concerned, if it ever looks like the familiar is doing too much in combat thanks to their dexterous digits, then he will have reason for a foe to see that and attack the familiar to disrupt those actions. And I can't really argue with that either; after one, *maybe* 2 hits, that familiar is going to be exiting combat via magic tattoo ASAP.
The difference is that Manual dexterity allows you to do manipulate actions "as if you had hands".
The companion items rules does not depend on the companions having hands or not. It straight up disallows Activation of items regardless if an item requires hands or if a companion has hands or other means to activate them. It straigt up says "they can never Activate". The means of Activation doesn't matter at all.
So they are 2 different things.
In order for Manual Dexterity to allow Activation, the Companion rules would have to say something like "Companions lack the hands to activate items".
Dude, no.
You have it backwards; the familiar ability Manual Dexterity would need to say "...were hands to perform manipulate actions, with the exception of item Activations."
There's plenty of other familiar abilities that are equally "impossible" for them to perform due to the base rules, yet they still function RaW.
The familiar abilities are a perfect example of specific overrides that modify and trump the base familiar rules.
That's literally their entire conceptual purpose. Your familiar ability budget is how you decide which rules you leave the default, and which rules you choose to change.
.
The exact same reason you can use Item Delivery to have the familiar: take + move + feed all in one Command is the reason why M Dex grants Interacts.
Because you obey the ability text and do as it instructs.
Manual Dexterity takes the base familiar that lacks hands to hold things and is never allowed to Activate items. It then grants that familiar 2 hands, and the ability to use the manipulate actions. You may now command that familiar to hold & manipulate(Interact(Activate)) your bulk L potions/etc fully RaW.
If Paizo thought that was too powerful, they had plenty of opportunity to change it.
If a GM thinks that's too powerful, they are free and encouraged to homebrew.
However, as far as I can tell, Manual Dexterity's text is the RaW. Those familiars have got the hands and the skills to pop corks.
If you have any questions Mark S discussed this 3 years back
You have it backwards; the familiar ability Manual Dexterity would need to say "...were hands to perform manipulate actions, with the exception of item Activations."
I mean, Manual Dexterity doesn't make an exception for casting spells with the manipulate trait either, but who is letting familiars without the Spellcasting Familiar Ability to cast Ignition? Or an exception to prevent them from using the Treat Poison without trained in Medicine? Or an exception to prevent them from using Overdrive...
We clearly don't expect a slew of other Manipulate actions because a familiar doesn't meet the requirements, so what makes a specific prohibition on Activations by familiars different? They never specified WHY a familiar can't Activate items, just that they can't. I mean, we've had an Ape companion in the game since APG and we haven't had them use their hands to Activate items...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a goofy thread.
I understand that I was speaking in opposition to a rather well entrenched take, and I'm happy to see the disagreements thus far have been very cordial.
I mean, Manual Dexterity doesn't make an exception for casting spells with the manipulate trait either, but who is letting familiars without the Spellcasting Familiar Ability to cast Ignition? Or an exception to prevent them from using the Treat Poison without trained in Medicine? Or an exception to prevent them from using Overdrive...
We clearly don't expect a slew of other Manipulate actions because a familiar doesn't meet the requirements, so what makes a specific prohibition on Activations by familiars different? They never specified WHY a familiar can't Activate items, just that they can't. I mean, we've had an Ape companion in the game since APG and we haven't had them use their hands to Activate items...
I think this rather strongly supports my point?
Cast a Spell is a specific action with many requirements that base familiars cannot perform. Most obviously, the f.ability does not have M Dex nor Speech as prerequisites despite both being mandatory for many spells. Yet, because the f.ability for Spellcasting declares they can cast a daily spell, they are able to perform the action.
No one claims that f.Spellcasting only grants envision/concentrate-only spells and one must slot M Dex for all the manipulate spells, Speech for the verbal, etc.
.
As always, you obey the specific override of the f.ability, even though the familiar does not meet the prerequisite.
The contentious part seems to be how many actions are included with the manipulates.
As pointed above, allowing them to do Manipulate actions that require hands doesn't translates to also giving them access to every single action with the Manipulate trait.
How else could that function? They lack all the associated actions. If granting them permission for manipulates did not include the manipulate actions themselves, the ability would be non functional.
.
If you have any questions Mark S discussed this 3 years back
Well, it's safe to say that this is why the current ruling is so entrenched. He's mercifully straightforward w/ his reasoning, which does explain the key issue, and while he doesn't directly put it in so many words, he highlights a detail I missed that's trying to be explained to me by others.
Like Strike, Activate is an extra weird action that's not normal, and most important here, is not actually included in the manipulate actions like Interact is.
Activate is even stranger in that it's not a base PC action like Strike or Leap. As far as I can tell, Activate is a purely a contextual action granted by items. (Pathbuilder gets even more kudos, as Activate is not in your PC Actions list, but the those items/gear actions are)
Activate not being a manipulate-granted action like Interact is enough for me personally have reason why M Dex isn't enough.
damn it all, I've flip flopped back into the "potions yes" camp thanks to Mark himself
.
.
As groan-inducing as it may be, I do need to point out Mark's immediate contradiction. Like Activate, Reload is an item-granted contextual action that has a dependent action of Interact. Mark could not have picked a worse action to rule "yes, they can" than Reload if he wanted the "potions, no" to hold water.
Reload is the exact same as Activate. They are both actions not granted to PCs innately, but by the items in their hand, and subsequently key off a dependent action. Reload is even more restrictive due to explicitly requiring the Interact action, while Elixir of Life's Activate is just a 1A generic "manipulate".
.
To condense Mark's statements:
M Dex does not grant Activate (because it's a contextual unlisted action[?]). But M Dex does grant the (contextual unlisted) action Reload.
I can't find any way around that being a non-viable contradiction. And it seems I'm not alone in pointing that issue out, based on... a surprising number of YT comments for such a niche and long interview.
I hate to "death of the author" in this context, but Mark was not correct here. The base Pet rules do state they cannot make Strikes. Yet, there's the specific familiar ability Bound to Mortal that trumps said rule to grant Strikes.
That exact same dynamic is at play here with Activate. If Strike can be granted by an ability, and if M Dex grants Reload, (and if Item Delivery allows elixir feeding!), then something else is required to block Activate.
.
I think the issue is that he's misremembering or perhaps live skimming the companion items rule:
You might want to acquire items that benefit a creature that assists you, such as an animal companion, familiar, or bonded animal. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally, these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item. [...]
He's remembering half a single sentence as if it's the entire rule, which fundamentally changes its meaning. The "never" instruction is specifically modifying GM advice to allow some item use for **base** familiars/companions. To restate it, "The GM may permit companions to use some items at their discretion, but this permission wholly excludes Activate an Item."
For that base companion rule to disallow future modification, it would need to have specifically stated it was not talking about base familiars, with something like "...even if a familiar gains the ability to manipulate items, they cannot..."
And super importantly, we can now say 100% that's not the way that rule works, or else it would block both M Dex Activates, and Item Delivery Activates. If a familiar ability can overrule it, then a familiar ability can overrule it.
.
.
It really does seem the consensus of "potions, no" is entirely stuck on this one word of author interview.
I still cannot believe the absurdity of the odds of him providing an instant contradiction of a possible "no" explanation thanks to the crossbow reload.
.
And while I'm afraid I really do think the base "potions, no" of the companion item rules are indeed trumped by Manual Dexterity, the addition of Item Delivery really does smash that "never Activate" snippet from being able to trump familiar abilities. (which is why Item Delivery is causing this topic's come back around again)
Pair that with "reload, yes" ruling which shows that you do get contextual unlisted actions, and I'm still stuck at M Dex granting cork-popping Activates.
[...]As you and others noted above, Activate is a specific action that may or may not include the manipulate trait (the manipulate trait being present on an Activate entry only governs if the item must wielded or touched to Activate, GMC p.220), and as it is specifically called out as verboten by the general rule it requires an even more specific override [...]
As far as I can see, no, the notion of that companion item rule being a future-proof instruction does not match with the reality of the text (and this determination seems to be the key Jenga piece in need of through evaluation).
"These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally, these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item."
The "never" part of that rule is quoted out of context. When understood as "but phrase" a part of the full sentence, it's clearly a way to trump the prior first half of the sentence, and 100% is *not* any attempt at future-proofing. An example of future proofing would be "... even if your familiar later gains ___, they still cannot Activate items."
.
This leaves the inability for a base familiar to Activate the same as their inability to Strike. Both actions are directly mentioned as disallowed by default.
Then, familiar abilities modify that baseline.
.
Before Item Delivery, one could deny Activate without the future-proof reading, by instead saying that M Dex does not grant unlisted contextual actions. However, that would also block all other unlisted contextuals like Reload. IMO, that does not quite work for me, though it's moot now.
I had not really scrutinized the Companion Items text before, and previously considered the community-repeated "never" to be a sufficient future-proof rule. And as there were 0 (non-M Dex) familiar abilities that contradicted it, there was nothing to poke me into reevaluating that "M Dex grants all manipulate, expect Activate" ruling.
.
Now that Item Delivery clearly allows the Activate of elixirs (I don't think it's honest to read it any other way), even the "future proofed" companion items claim also must fall. Because the Item Delivery ability has just as much "overrule power" as any other familiar ability. Meaning, I was wrong to think that the Companion Items text was a valid future-proof that blocked M Dex.
.
Again, this line of logic forcing the issue is why I've flipped into the "potions, yes" camp.
So, I'm going to need a simple Yes/No:
Can a Familiar cast Finger of Death at level 1 with just Manual Dexterity (after all, according to you, ALL other requirements are ignored due to "being able to use Manipulate Actions")?
Because that's exactly what you are saying and asking to be accepted as RAW.
No.
And no, that's not what I am claiming, and that's an absurd mischaracterization. Thankfully, it is so much so that I'm not worried about others believing your false presentation of my argument.
.
The most specific claim I am making is that single Jenga piece of the Companion Items interpretation.
As far as I can tell, it is completely incorrect to read it as a future-proofed denial of Activate.
Instead, I think it's appropriate to compare the inability to Activate to the inability to Strike; both are explicitly disallowed by default.
And both can be enabled by specific familiar abilities.
And no, that's not what I am claiming, and that's an absurd mischaracterization.
It doesn't seem that way IMO. Saying you can Activate JUST by gaining the ability to use Manipulate actions is just as absurd to me as saying it allows spell casting and it doesn't seem I'm alone.
Instead, I think it's appropriate to compare the inability to Activate to the inability to Strike; both are explicitly disallowed by default.
And both can be enabled by specific familiar abilities.
True, but it's enabled by abilities that specifically allow them and not from a series of 'Jenga pieces' where you have to go on a journey through the rules to come to that conclusion. Nothing in and of itself from Manual Dexterity overrides the Minions inability to activate non-Companion items as that inability has never been linked to the Manipulate trait: in fact, as it disallows all activations, with or without the trait, it would indicate the opposite, that Manipulate has NO bearing on its inability to Activate. A familiar with the ability to speak can't use the Command Activation and they can't use Envision Activation even though they can think.
EDIT: Let me ask you a question: does the Spellcasting familiar ability allow familiars to use items with the Cast a Spell Activation? To me, it's a no as it doesn't override the basic denial on all Activations. And can you explain why a familiar can't use Envision Activations if having the to use the trait involved allows you to use the actions?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've come around just a bit on this based on a functional usability standpoint.
Since it is foisted on the GM to interpret so much with PF2 my group was forced to do it and this *gestures vaguely* kind of thing is one that came up more than once.
The ruling we agreed on is that for all intents and purposes there are two different mechanical silos that we had to make when it comes to how companions handle THINGS in their environment:
1) Activate a Magic Item
2) Activate a (mundane) item
Magic Items ALWAYS require the Companion Trait if a Companion is going to use it, period, full stop. Other non-magical items such as alchemical items, tools, and that sort of thing you just have to use your best judgment. The main "exception" to this is for Eidolons who are VERY clearly NEVER meant to wield Weapons or wear Armor (unless otherwise explicitly allowed).
So, with Manual Dex that allows our familiars, within reason, to strike a match, pour an elixir, open a door, press a button, or anything else that justifiably can be done with what works somewhat like a hand or similar appendage. Potions, Talisman/Spellhearts, "wondrous items" and other similar stuff that is innately magical though, that's a big nope, even IF the Activation is something as simple as pushing a button or saying a word (for companions that CAN speak), it won't work because... they arent (for lack of a better word) real and don't really exist or have any substantive existence outside of the scope of them being part of their master.
EDIT: Let me ask you a question: does the Spellcasting familiar ability allow familiars to use items with the Cast a Spell Activation? To me, it's a no as it doesn't override the basic denial on all Activations.
As the familiar is not granted Cast a Spell, no. The spellcasting f.ability only grants what it says it does, which is the 1 p day spell (even if the familiar cannot speak nor gesture).
A PC may be able to throw around innate magic, yet still need to take a Wizard or other dedication feat to specifically be granted the Cast a Spell activity.
.
.
If one agrees that Activate is not future-proof banned, then it comes down to if Manual Dexterity grants the manipulate actions.
In order for the ability to function, it has to provide that. To be specific, the alternative is to not grant any actions at all, literally rendering it non-functional. No Interact to take, pick up, hold, etc.
A Lab Assistant familiar would perform Quick Alchemy as the ability grants... and then instantly drop the item.
It's the same conclusion as the crossbow Reload. Activate is an unlisted action that becomes available when holding the item, and states what dependent action or activity you must perform.
With no way to get the Cast a Spell activity, familiars can never Activate scrolls, etc.
Items like the Elixir of Life have Activate(manipulate) requirements. And as the action of Activate kinda "grants itself" when holding the item, it's that much harder to deny the familiar. It's a shorter rule bridge to say that a familiar can Activate(manipulate) that elixir than it is for them to Interact:[pass off] the item to a PC.
.
Without the future-proof specific denial, I do not know how it is possible to allow M Dex to enable a familiar to pick up and pass items, but to deny them that contextual Activate.
If you have any ideas, I'm very much open to them.
How is this any different than "because with Manual Dexterity a Familiar can use Manipulate Actions, now it can Cast any Spell it wants because all Casts are Manipulate Actions. The other requirements are rendered null because now they can use Manipulate Actions".
---
They are both the exact same arguments. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If RAW allows one, it also allows the other.
---
You've gotten completely ridiculous and illogical again. You are either not thinking/reading straight, or are trolling.
Being "granted" the manipulates does not mean it meets the requirements to perform all of them.
If a familiar lacks Cast a Spell (which afaik is not possible to obtain) then all actions that require Cast a Spell are still not doable.
Same concept as to why you can't use Interact to grab something across the room and outside your reach. You have access to Interact, but are unable to perform it. That should not need to be explained, and especially not multiple times.
.
If Manual Dexterity does not grant access to the manipulate actions, that means no Interact, no nothing. The familiar cannot pick up a stick. This position is untenable, and I presume you are not taking it.
Activate(manipulate) is a contextual action that requires the use of manipulate, and for the hands requirements to be met to perform. Like Reload, it is an unlisted action that only "unlocks" via the item granting its specific action to its user.
The same abilities/features a PC uses for the item Activation(manipulate) are possessed by an M Dex familiar.
.
If you have an actual rules reason why the Manual Dexterity ability can be a specific override that enables access to some manipulates, like Interact, Release, Point Out, while somehow not enabling access to Activate(manipulate), I am receptive to new information.
As far as I can tell, as soon as the notion of a future-proof ban was dispelled by the context of the full sentence of that rule (and thanks to Item Delivery), there is no special Activate block as was previously assumed. Which means that item Activation(manipulate) is RaW if Manual Dexterity is selected.
.
Bringing this back to the OP, this explains and answers the confusing language of Item Delivery perfectly.
It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type of item (such as alchemical elixir).
Within this understanding, the "appropriate type" of item are those that the familiar can already use thanks to M Dex, the Activate(manipulate) items, such as alchemical elixirs.
It seems that it all come down to whether or not one thinks there is a special ban on Activate.
That means... nothing? I'm not even sure what you are saying over here. To begin with, there isn't an item granting someone the Reload action. It's not like if you put a gun down you forget how to Reload.
To start with the PC-side, as far as I understand contextual actions, it -is- very much like you forget how to Reload when not in reach of something you can Reload.
While a PC that takes a feat like Running Reload always has that action, there is no Reload in the manipulate list, nor is it ever mentioned by its dependent action of Interact. It's an unlisted contextual action /use-of-Interact that is granted by the weapons that need reloading.
Item Activate also works like this. There is no class feature, PC feature, etc, that ever grants access to the "Activate" action. The Activating Items rules uses language that puts the Activation and effects as properties of the item. ~"the item grants its Activate to the holder" is IMO an accurate characterization. Not a super important detail, as I don't think anyone's making the argument that: "M Dex familiars don't explicitly get Interact, therefore cannot pick up sticks"
.
.
All of that "access to Activate" is irrelevant if familiars have a specific "may never Activate" ban.
You might want to acquire items that benefit a creature that assists you, such as an animal companion, familiar, or bonded animal. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally, these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item.
[companions get a 2 investment limit paragraph]
While I 100% agree this is a default "no Activates allowed," I think it is outright incorrect to present this as anything more than clearly outlining the companion base capabilities. IMO it is in no way a future-proof ban. This "..., but..." phrase is there to modify and set a hard line to mark where GM allowance should end. ~"even if the GM is permissive and allows companions to use(or wear & invest) some items, companions cannot Activate items."
I think it's appropriate to refer to that as a clearly stated inability.
Again, if anyone has another bit of rules text that prevents familiars from getting activate or using items, I am seeking that out.
Because I cannot find anything in Pet, Minion trait, nor Familiar rules that give even a hint about restricting contextual actions in general, nor Activate in specific.
.
If I attempt to neuralizer memory-wipe that one 1/2 sentence phrase from functioning as a special ban, I cannot find anything other than historical inertia to treat Activate as a special case. I can find no other cautions nor guidance on the subject.
Pets are tiny animals first, inheriting allllll of that, then are modified by the Pet, etc, text.
As far as I understand from trying to read the Companion Items w/ fresh eyes; companions, etc, cannot Activate items because they 100% lack the ability to do so. Same reason they cannot speak, they lack the capability to perform that activity.
.
If one considers that bit of the Companion Items to not be laying out their baseline capabilities, and instead sees that as a specific -future- ban, that is a perfectly good reason to consider this discussion rather moot.
As best as I can determine, granting tiny animals hands and the ability to manipulate with them is exactly what new capability they need to overcome the baseline limitation preventing Activate(manipulate).
Note that even the adjacent Strike example doesn't really compare. Tiny animals can generally Strike, hence the need for a specific "A pet can't make Strikes" overrule. And as that specific rule is what prevents Strikes, it needs to be directly overruled with a ~"gains an unarmed attack" ability to later change things.
Meanwhile, the only thing stopping a familiar from Reloading a crossbow is the lack of Manual Dexterity, so there's no need for a specific "can now perform Reloads" overrule.
Which is why it's all dependent on that one bit of Companion Item text. If I cannot see that text as a specific hard ban, then I lack any rules to deny Activate.
.
I'm also open to any other word of dev scraps or other outside text that anyone may be able to share. So long as it's not pointing back to that single Mark S interview, having a single other dev state that "no Activates!" was a design goal would be a big improvement/help.
Because at this point, and w/ the Item Delivery text matching so well with the "Activates, yes" ruling (and being a total mess with the "Activates, no" ruling), I'm really looking for RaI signs to affirm that Paizo has been operating under the same assumed ruling as this subset of players here.
The answer to the above question is that in the absence of language allowing a Familiar to use the Activate action specifically, they cannot.
This logic leads directly to the "was not explicitly granted Interact, therefore cannot pick up a stick" issue.
How do you permit an M Dex familiar to Reload a crossbow, or to perform any basic action that's not specifically mentioned?
Pets/familiars are really light on word count, and depend on a whole lot on actions with "specifically absent permission" being allowed by nature of them being tiny animals. Why is a base familiar allowed to perform Take Cover without being granted that specific action? etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-post edit:
Decided to just search around myself for any Paizo-related indication of what their RaI was.
The Companion Item text was changed in errata! Though trying to seek a before-and-after was a waste of time and direct errata only stated the new replacement text and lacked context.
The best resource in that vein is this FAQ page that I'm keeping bookmarked right next to AoN:
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
(note that the page has a bad search bar w/ an aggressive scroll lock. For me it's actually easier to use if I manually expand every book of errata and then use the browser's ctrl-f to jump around)
Page 604: Under Companion Items, replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes it clearer than before that companions can't normally use other items, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items. It also indicates that companions can't Activate an Item, though the errata says animal, the rule extends to the other types of animal companions and familiars that aren't animals.
Like, f#+$ me. This could have been put to bed 20 posts ago. That's very much a "specific block against Activate".
Sorry for wasting time.
Yes and I agree it is frustrating, for the reasons you have discussed. Also because the clearest explanation is buried in the FAQ.
I agree that Paizo had to do this as they have too many good items and it would break the game if it was generally allowed.
Also good they clearly stated their intent with non animals.
Unfortunately I agree with Themetricsystem and I do allow some of it to work in my games. But on a specific GM allows this, on a case by case basis.
This is such a goofy thread.
Agreed. I think it went completely off the rails when someone insisted that a single example of the rule should instead be the entirety of the rule - specifically that since the example only lists alchemical elixir, that no other type of item can be used.
Example =/= rule.
My bad. for some reason I misread that as the opposite. I thought it was originally Companion switched to animal switched back to companion. Thank you for correcting me.
Just goes to show how unclear it all is. But yeah, while raw errata itself doesn't reveal much of anything, the extra context that you can get in places like the FAQ (or if you can compare against the older text) can reveal what Paizo thinks the text means, that all Activates are denied to companions/helpers.
While it can leave RaW in a rule-laywerable and problematic state, this beyond-rules context is a legit way to better determine a "correct interpretation" when things are ambiguous.
Just like with the pet Strike block, using this FAQ interpretation for that sentence then means that a specific Activate allowance is needed to overrule the Activate block.
So Manual Dexterity does grant the familiar access to all the manipulates, but this one Activate block is not removed.
.
My recommendation for errata (at the very minimum) is to reverse that sentence around. Ordering it so the "Companions may never Activate an item, but the GM can..." makes it clear that it's supposed to be a rule that applies to companions as a whole, and is not just a modifier on the GM permission. (TBH they never should have fused 2 rules into the same sentence like that)
.
It is honestly bizarre and not OK for such an important rule for familiars to be in the Companion Items section with 0 mention elsewhere.
An inheritance / trait / link based system *needs* to have intact links that connect everything one needs to know. Much of the time Paizo gets this right, but then you get things like the Pet/Familiar rules.
I honestly think it's >50% odds that someone getting their first familiar will never encounter a companion trait item that'll link back to the that specific trait. Oh wait, the companion trait doesn't link/point to the companion item rules, only the animal companion rules, which also never point there.
.
The Companion Item rules are shunted off in the GM core Treasure Trove and items section, and are now less findable than ever for players thanks to the book split. I'd guess 90%+ have no idea about that paragraph. It's likely that hearing of this exact topic of the Activate ban is what then points players to first encounter the rule blurb. That is the worst case scenario for a link-based system like this. If ~0% of players naturally find that rule when planning out a familiar, that 0 comprehension is a ~100% failure of execution.
Link based systems trade the annoyance of jumping around for being able to have big total text limits, and also add an extra risk/execution requirement via needing those links.
.
It's just not viable for players (and GMs) to have no idea if what they are doing is even legal. If that "am I missing a rule and cheating?" worry sets in, it poisons the whole experience.
A failure of the rules to be player-comprehensible is a bigger deal than I'm explaining here. Just a few bad experiences due to this, like if this Activate ban became an at-table argument, can spoil the whole system for people.
.
As the ground 0, Pet (or minion) needs to list off all the other places its rules live. That's not optional if pf2 is to be considered a successful rules system, IMO.
Sorry for the sanctimonious rant there
I can see that an item needs the companion trait to be worn by companions or similar creatures. They can still hold such an item, right?