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?
If they have Manual Dexterity, yes. They can *interact with* a lot of items thanks to the ability, but they are specifically banned from Activate.
Things like opening/shutting the shutter of a lantern, reloading a crossbow, are all valid. They can draw an elixir, and they can put it in your hand, they just cannot perform the Activate to pop the cork.
If you take Skilled:Thievery, there's actually a decent amount of work they can accomplish thanks to that toolkit being tiny-critter compatible at bulk L.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who's going to tell him what happened to familiars and trained skill actions? :3
*pulls up chair* Yeah, let's wait and see what happens. :P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, as someone who has written more than a few bits of technical documentation, I have come to believe that one of the "problems" with Pathfinder 2E is that it is inconsistent with the level of specificity in the wording of the rules. Sometimes the rules goes into exacting detail, which, while helpful, understandably creates the expectation that the entire rule set will be written with a similar philosophy. But then, in other places where it is much "looser" with wording, people are left to draw inferences...inferences which are shaped, in part, by that expectation of clarify. I believe it is this inconsistency which has spawned many of 2E's biggest "RAI" vs. "RAW" debates.
The "you don't need an appendage in order to administer first aid" arguments of yore were a perfect example. You had people arguing, in apparent good faith, that someone with no limbs could administer first aid, solely because the game didn't explicitly state that a hand (or limb) was required. Which seems rather ridiculous, until you see other places in the rules which do explicitly state that a hand is required, even though the activity in question obviously required less manual dexterity than treating wounds. Personally, I feel that is like arguing that gravity isn't necessary in order to come down after a jump because the rules don't explicitly state that it is, and yet this argument spawned dozens of pages of (sometimes quite combative) back-and-forth. My big takeaway from that is that that simple existence of amount of debate meant that that the rules were unclear, almost by definition.
My point is that PF2E tried to move the rules into a much more codified direction, which I think was a laudable goal, but their implementation was hit-and-miss.
My advice to Paizo: When the time inevitably comes for a 3E, if you continue on the path of codification with the rules, please involve a technical writer. You'll thank yourself later. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who's going to tell him what happened to familiars and trained skill actions? :3I did notice you no longer replace a familiar (or pet) back in the event it dies for free with a week of downtime. I had to homerule that one back in.
The consensus after PC came out was that they probably just intend you to use the the normal downtime rules to retrain the feat itself to get your new familiar, it works out the same way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who's going to tell him what happened to familiars and trained skill actions? :3*pulls up chair* Yeah, let's wait and see what happens. :P
Wow, it is surprisingly hard/annoying to find an old version to compare against the remaster text. (Skilled was not a base Core ability in whichever printing/edition my old pdf is, idk which book added it)
Thanks to the Magnificent Menagerie guide https://docs.google.com/document/d/107_A6a9VmBwPVgIihj7I3gvOToGYzaSB7jh5gNF zLlw/edit
I'm guessing the "your familiar’s modifier now increases to the same modifier as the aforementioned skills, and now they can perform the trained portion of that skill." is completely gone? I can't find any existing post-remaster text that allows for the trained skill actions.
That was most of the point of the Skilled ability... you already get +Lvl to familiar untrained skill checks (unlike PCs, who are stuck at 0 when untrained).
Now Skilled is little more than a prerequisite tax for the decent but niche Second Opinion.
What the actual f%#~, why.
.
Is there any sign that was an unintentional oversight with move from familiars to Pet --> Familiar?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing the "your familiar’s modifier now increases to the same modifier as the aforementioned skills, and now they can perform the trained portion of that skill." is completely gone? I can't find any existing post-remaster text that allows for the trained skill actions.
Skilled JUST adds spell casting modifier to skill rolls with that skill.
Now Skilled is little more than a prerequisite tax for the decent but niche Second Opinion.
Yep. Though at low levels it can have skill rolls higher than the owner if they would normally not have a good score in the skill and it had rolls that don't need training.
Is there any sign that was an unintentional oversight with move from familiars to Pet --> Familiar?
IMO, this would have been a simple copy/paste if it was meant to stay the same, so it looks like a deliberate removal to me.
If they have Manual Dexterity, yes. They can *interact with* a lot of items thanks to the ability, but they are specifically banned from Activate.
What prevents them from using Activate?
If they have Manual Dexterity, yes. They can *interact with* a lot of items thanks to the ability, but they are specifically banned from Activate.What prevents them from using Activate?
A clause inside of the Companion Items rules bans Activate from the group of pets/companions/familiars.
While reading it blind you may not come to that conclusion, there is additional context in the errata FAQ that shows that Paizo means for it to be a specific ban on the Activate action/activity.
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.
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
------------------------ಠ_ಠ
There's a very real chance the question's honest.
And that sentence is only in GM Core? How are players supposed to know this when making a character with a familiar? It definitely would have been in the Core Rulebook before the remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that sentence is only in GM Core? How are players supposed to know this when making a character with a familiar? It definitely would have been in the Core Rulebook before the remaster.
Correct it's in the GM Core after the remaster.
It's also not linked by any pet/familiar/companion/minion or other text a player or GM may encounter. Literally none, it's completely orphan afaik.
The other half of those Companion Item rules, info that such helpers get a 2 investment limit, is instead copied out as text when needed, so no pointer ever directs to the rule section.
You have to hear about the ban, then be pointed to the rule by another person.
(and again, the actual RaW in the book does NOT have the meaning that Paizo thinks it does, and needs more errata if they want it to actually have that function.)
Do familiars not count as companions? Because the rule states that "companions" can't Activate an Item. It doesn't say "animal" anymore.
As a side note, it's weird that the stat block for the Activate an Item action isn't in the remaster yet a lot of GM Core chapter 5 still refers to it. Or is that the RAW weirdness you were talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I didn't have time to read the full first page of this thread.
Man, the Wizard in my campaign is gonna hate this. He got a familiar to administer potions for him, and that familiar has been a life saver so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I didn't have time to read the full first page of this thread.
Man, the Wizard in my campaign is gonna hate this. He got a familiar to administer potions for him, and that familiar has been a life saver so far.
ermahgerd, Item Delivery DOES allow that, because it is a specific override of the "can't activate" rule!
cue Monty Python's deja vu sketch
Oh right, duh.
Yeah, I didn't have time to read the full first page of this thread.
Man, the Wizard in my campaign is gonna hate this. He got a familiar to administer potions for him, and that familiar has been a life saver so far.
ermahgerd, Item Delivery DOES allow that, because it is a specific override of the "can't activate" rule!
cue Monty Python's deja vu sketch
Except Item Delivery is super-duper crap because it's not that at all.
Item Delivery is like Valet, it's a singular specific act limited by the exact scripted context of the described action.
And the super-niche script *starts* with mandating the item is in the *master's* hand, FFS. I have literally never witnessed a situation in which I wished I had Item Delivery as it is written.
.
Only if the GM goes against the RaW and allows Item Delivery to function as generic "Activate enabler" (for drinkables) does it have some real value, IMO.
Hmm, Item Delivery lets the familiar take the item from you as long as it is adjacent. I guess that means it also overrides the familiar's reach of 0 feet?
Yeah, I didn't have time to read the full first page of this thread.
Man, the Wizard in my campaign is gonna hate this. He got a familiar to administer potions for him, and that familiar has been a life saver so far.
ermahgerd, Item Delivery DOES allow that, because it is a specific override of the "can't activate" rule!
cue Monty Python's deja vu sketch
Except Item Delivery is super-duper crap because it's not that at all.
Item Delivery is like Valet, it's a singular specific act limited by the exact scripted context of the described action.
And the super-niche script *starts* with mandating the item is in the *master's* hand, FFS. I have literally never witnessed a situation in which I wished I had Item Delivery as it is written.
.
Only if the GM goes against the RaW and allows Item Delivery to function as generic "Activate enabler" (for drinkables) does it have some real value, IMO.
But RAW Item Delivery literally says it can administer the item, even giving alchemical elixirs as an example.