While there is a rule that states "A familiar can have no more than one ability that changes its creature trait (such as construct or plant)."
as far as I can find, there is no restriction/conflict if one attempts to select multiple copies of many "staple" familiar or master abilities, such as Spellcasting or Spell Battery. This could significantly alter one's daily prep, and perhaps change one's view on the value of familiars as a whole.
The Spellcasting f.ability is perhaps most notable and worth discussing first, because for those PCs who do not regularly use their familiar's actions in combat, spending 1A to Command for a 2A spellcast can be seen as pseduo-action compression.
Choosing to slot that multiple times is costly, but the action time benefits seems to compensate for the much lower R spell limitation, especially for a turn 1 buff/debuff.
Errenor wrote: They are binary Can you find any text that states as such.
As far as I can tell, this seems to be an assumption/misconception, partially due to the rule for "only one" creature-type ability existing, but not applying to the general case.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As with other abilities that are selectable they will state wether they can be picked multiple times. This is covered under the section of reading rules.
If you look at the ability "Skilled" it says that you can pick this repeatedly
Here's the 2 most relevant rules blurbs above the specific abilities.
Selecting Familiar and Master Abilities wrote: Instead of choosing two abilities only when you gain your familiar as you do with a normal pet, you can choose the two abilities each day during your daily preparations. You can choose from familiar abilities and master abilities. You can choose the pet abilities from the feat as familiar abilities as well. You can’t swap out abilities that are innate to your familiar. For example, you couldn’t choose not to give a raven familiar flying. Familiar Abilities wrote: Familiar abilities primarily affect the familiar itself. A familiar can have no more than one ability that changes its creature trait (such as construct or plant). You can choose a pet ability (from the Pet feat, page 259) as a familiar ability: amphibious, burrower, climber, darkvision, echolocation, fast movement, flier, manual dexterity, scent, or tough (see the sidebar). .
Skilled is a good catch/find.
Skilled wrote: Choose a skill other than Acrobatics or Stealth. Your familiar's modifier for that skill is equal to your level plus your spellcasting attribute modifier, rather than just your level. You can select this ability repeatedly, choosing a different skill each time. It is a possible nugget on the scale that the RaI was for a "1 per ability" limit to be the norm.
That said, I cannot find any general rule that Skilled would be overriding w/ its callout of taking the same ability multiple times for different skills.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I am not finding any printed restriction that prevents taking a familiar ability multiple times. Though, to be fair, I am not currently finding any restriction on taking the same feat multiple times either - though I am pretty sure that I remember seeing it somewhere.
I do mention that 'the exception proves the rule' is not a rule - it is one of two types of Affirming the Consequent fallacy that are common on these forums (the other being 'specific defines general').
So no, the statement in the Skilled ability that says that it can be taken multiple times does not give us proof of what the unstated general rule is. It could be reminder text of the general rule that all familiar abilities can be chosen multiple times (specific defines general), or it could be an exception to the general rule that a familiar ability can only be chosen once (the exception proves the rule). Without having the general rule, we can't know which.
Now, that said, it is commonly interpreted that familiar abilities can only be chosen once unless they specify otherwise. So best of luck trying to convince your table to read it differently.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I can't find an explicit once only limit, but the language surrounding familiar abilities could potentially be read that way.
Pet/Familiar says you "choose two" of the following abilities, and things like improved familiar say you gain "an extra abilitiy"
You could argue that this naturally precludes taking an ability multiple times, since you're being asked to choose 'two' or "an additional" ability, which you sort of aren't doing if you're picking the same ability again (skilled nonwithstanding because it carves out an exception).
No direct "you can only take each ability once" statement though.
We do have a convention regarding duplicate effects, So the question here is if said convention applies to rule elements as a whole. For example I fail to find anything general in regarding picking the same feat multiple times. Just feats which state that you can pick them multiple times found within their Special Notes. The convention itself might be the general rule here?
Duplicate Effects wrote: When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal. For example, if you were using mystic armor and then cast it again, you'd still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage. We all agree that feats cannot be picked multiple times because there is text to specify this despite the absence of a general rule, The Reading rules section for examples specify the Special: Quote: Special: Any special qualities of the rule are explained in this section. Usually this section appears in feats you can select more than once, explaining what happens when you do.
NorrKnekten wrote: We all agree that feats cannot be picked multiple times because there is text to specify this despite the absence of a general rule, The Reading rules section for examples specify the Special: Quote: Special: Any special qualities of the rule are explained in this section. Usually this section appears in feats you can select more than once, explaining what happens when you do. This section here that you quoted isn't just for feats. It actually deals with any rules element you can select.
Kelseus wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: We all agree that feats cannot be picked multiple times because there is text to specify this despite the absence of a general rule, The Reading rules section for examples specify the Special: Quote: Special: Any special qualities of the rule are explained in this section. Usually this section appears in feats you can select more than once, explaining what happens when you do. This section here that you quoted isn't just for feats. It actually deals with any rules element you can select. I thought I mentioned that the text was specifically rule elements in earlier post? Granted I did not quote it earlier because I don't think it alone neccesarily proves anything on its own.
NorrKnekten wrote: As with other abilities that are selectable they will state wether they can be picked multiple times. This is covered under the section of reading rules.
If you look at the ability "Skilled" it says that you can pick this repeatedly
The problem as said is how does one confirm/convince someone that said text does not only apply to feats when its specifically feats that are stated,or rather it doesn't tell us what cannot be picked more than once just that feats will typically have a section stating that if they can.
So, the best thing I can think of as a general rule to prove this would be the Game Convention on Duplicate Effects.
NorrKnekten wrote: The problem as said is how does one confirm/convince someone that said text does not only apply to feats when its specifically feats that are stated,or rather it doesn't tell us what cannot be picked more than once just that feats will typically have a section stating that if they can. It's easy: GMs must have some common sense. And tell the players it's b%*@&+%# when it's b&!!$@%*. And players shouldn't do this stupid rules-lawyering. "Choose n from a list" doesn't include "choose one thing several times" in common understanding.
Of course, saying it outright in the rules would do no harm.
But thinking you can take Tough several times for example is bs.
Common understanding is not a concept to rely on as even GMs get things wrong. There are plenty of examples in Pathfinder where the 'common understanding' comes from a 3-5 year old video from some content creator stating what they think their reading is.
And times where the reading of the rules goes against the intent such as with the discussion of Dhampirs being the target of Heal/Harm where the only thing i've seen on what the intent is was an old claim in a How its Played video that Stephen Glicker had gotten feedback from Paizo devs on said topic.
Granted that is no where near as bad as stacking Tough. But if we look at cantrip expansion or better yet, The familiar ability Cantrip Connection multiple times then its suddenly not looking as BS, in some eyes this would be a waste of feats/abilities.
I am still of the mind that the Game Convention is the general rule in this case, And that it applies to everything unless otherwise stated.
NorrKnekten wrote: Common understanding is not a concept to rely on... In this game it is. Probably for the worse. It's not written tightly/precisely enough. Of course there's also that thing that perfect rules are impossible.
NorrKnekten wrote: And times where the reading of the rules goes against the intent such as with the discussion of Dhampirs being the target of Heal/Harm And this is exactly the case where we have to use common sense/understanding for now (and where clarification really needed though because it's not that straightforward like here): like vitality damage probably have to do something, that void healing property should be symmetrical to vitality healing and so on.
NorrKnekten wrote: I am still of the mind that the Game Convention is the general rule in this case, And that it applies to everything unless otherwise stated. If you are about Special entry in the rules element format - it's kind of wobbly, pet/familiar abilities aren't full selectable rules elements, they are part of ones (twos?).
Errenor wrote: If you are about Special entry in the rules element format - it's kind of wobbly, pet/familiar abilities aren't full selectable rules elements, they are part of ones (twos?). Player Core pg. 399 Game Conventions Sidebar wrote: Game Conventions
Pathfinder has many specific rules, but you'll also want to keep these general guidelines in mind when playing.
...
Duplicate Effects
When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal. For example, if you were using mystic armor and then cast it again, you'd still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
...
Is the actual text im talking about, The rest of the conventions handles rounding, multipliplying, specific vs general and how to handle ambigious rules.
NorrKnekten wrote: Errenor wrote: If you are about Special entry in the rules element format - it's kind of wobbly, pet/familiar abilities aren't full selectable rules elements, they are part of ones (twos?). Player Core pg. 399 Game Conventions Sidebar wrote: Game Conventions
Pathfinder has many specific rules, but you'll also want to keep these general guidelines in mind when playing.
...
Duplicate Effects
When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal. For example, if you were using mystic armor and then cast it again, you'd still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
...
Is the actual text im talking about, The rest of the conventions handles rounding, multipliplying, specific vs general and how to handle ambigious rules. Yeah... This is wobbly too, as it speaks about effects and things you could be affected by. Feats and pet abilities aren't that at all. They are not effects and you (or familiar) aren't affected by having their abilities. Frankly simply referring to common sense seems more valid to me than pretending this rule works here.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trip.H wrote: The Spellcasting f.ability is perhaps most notable and worth discussing first, because for those PCs who do not regularly use their familiar's actions in combat, spending 1A to Command for a 2A spellcast can be seen as pseduo-action compression.
Choosing to slot that multiple times is costly, but the action time benefits seems to compensate for the much lower R spell limitation, especially for a turn 1 buff/debuff.
Familiars are pets and follow pet rules except where otherwise stated. PC1 p212 "You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities..."
The discussion of pet abilities starting on PC1 p259 says "choose two of..." which, in my natural language read, I would take to mean two separate things taken from the list.
So I would apply the 'choose two of' language to familiar abilities too, and say no double dipping the same ability. Just like a familiar couldn't take Tough twice, it can't take Spellcasting twice.
But this is just how I read it - I think reasonable people could certainly disagree. I'm also not sure how unbalancing a second round R1 cast is going to be on a L11 character (which is what Spellcasting gives, and because your first round cast is covered by the totally legal first take of the ability), so if I were GMing a home game and this is something a player really really wanted, I'd probably allow it for a session or two, see how it impacts the game, and then make a final decision based on empiricism rather than rules interpretation. One nice thing about familiars is that with the ability to change abilities each day, 'it no longer has the ability to cast both spells' is easily handled in-game, without retconning or story gymnastics.
The creature itself is affected by having their abilites, And certain abilities benefit the master of the familiar.
Yes, its wobbly. Its a guideline and not a rule using the language of 'things' instead of specifying what they are talking about. The way it doesn't capitalize Effect also points to this isnt speaking of effects as a mechanical element. Like it would do if it was speaking strictly about Effects such as Spell Effects or from abilities. Page 15, Format of Rules tells us they capitalize words when that is the case.
Feats and abilities by definition have an effect or benefit and there is otherwise no mention of limitations when picking selectable rule elements unless said elements have prerequisites, level requirements or if another rule element demands you pick it.
So yeah I don't think common sense works here because that will differ between people and situations. One table might allow someone to pick the same feat multiple times, Another might say this only applies to certain rule elements and some feats. A third might say that it is a GM call. Because other than this guideline there really isn't anything to tell them otherwise. And at that point you don't have a rule at all other than the GMs word.
The existance of rule elements which say they can be picked several times (including skilled) does not disprove that rule elements of the same type can not be picked several times. It simply states that there is a different benefit when picked more than once.
We can obviously be of different minds but I really cannot think of anything in this game where you would benefit from a duplicate unless it specifically states this. Even for two different effects that give you the same benefit you still typically only gain the higher of the two.
Just to ask directly, can anyone think of a worse abuse/ balance problem than stacking Tough?
Gaining 2HP p level is a genuinely good f.ability, and is 2x as potent as the PC Toughness general feat.
It's hard to say if it's abusable or a balance problem to spend a bunch of familiar abilities on giving them a large HP pool, and keep in mind that this would need to hold up when familiars have low R spells via Spellcasting.
The largest "exploit" I can think of for a large HP pool is something like Spirit Link to slowly heal PCs, but the R of the spell will be so low as to not be an issue.
I've only played a proper Witch briefly, and have thus far found little/no offensive use of my Spirit Familiar in Stolen Fate. Even with an attack, they just make a much bigger impact when saving Alchemist actions with item handling.
Familiars seem to be so safely "tied down" in a rules manner, that even a free rebuild to my L15 PC to maximize the little helper's abuse of a 175 hp pool via 3x Tough is not really producing "powerful" results. Even if I'm thinking with all the tools available, Familiar Conduit for distance spellcasting, alchemy stuff, etc, I'm just spending their f.abilities on being able to survive a single turn of direct enemy focus, lol.
Even if a GM allowed a Spirit Familiar to be fed a Bestial Mutagen to get a decent attack, I'm not really seeing how that's a real danger when things like Animal Companions are so easily obtained (and that example is already doubling up on rare/unlikely requirements).
I don't want to say that "this looks so balanced I think it was the RaI all along" but it's surprising how well this permissive ruling seems to work considering that perspective. Even the +cantrip and +daily item abilities are even with the feats or missing a ribbon or something.
Lets see,
Damage avoidance so it only takes damage on failures, Combined with Dazzling Show I can see this one being especially nasty.
In a general sense I dont think doubling up on familiar abilities is something that will cause trouble but I can absolutely see the abuse that can happen once investment happens and that you change abilities each day.
Trip.H wrote: It's hard to say if it's abusable or a balance problem to spend a bunch of familiar abilities on giving them a large HP pool, and keep in mind that this would need to hold up when familiars have low R spells via Spellcasting. Since the familiar casts at the PC's spell attack modifier and spell DC, it's not just Bless or other 'auto-buff's we're talking about, we're talking about attack and save spells too. Or an extra 2a force barrage every round.
Quote: I don't want to say that "this looks so balanced I think it was the RaI all along" but it's surprising how well this permissive ruling seems to work considering that perspective. I'm really skeptical it's RAI. But I agree it might work okay, which is why I said that if I were gming it, I'd let the player try it for a session or two before making a decision. Seems definitely in the realm of 'do what works best for your table.'
KnorrKnekten wrote: Feats and abilities by definition have an effect or benefit and there is otherwise no mention of limitations when picking selectable rule elements IMO there is a mention of this limitation. PC1, page 259 "When you gain your pet, choose two of the following abilities..." A familiar is a pet with an expanded list of choices, but as a pet it still follows the "choose two of the following abilities" rule unless a specific exception is called out (as in the case of the witch familiar getting three). But again, I'd say reasonable people can disagree on whether "choose two of" includes "choose the same thing twice." It doesn't the way I read it, but maybe you read it differently.
Easl wrote: norrKnekten wrote: Feats and abilities by definition have an effect or benefit and there is otherwise no mention of limitations when picking selectable rule elements IMO there is a mention of this limitation. PC1, page 259 "When you gain your pet, choose two of the following abilities..." A familiar is a pet with an expanded list of choices, but as a pet it still follows the "choose two of the following abilities" rule unless a specific exception is called out (as in the case of the witch familiar getting three). But again, I'd say reasonable people can disagree on whether "choose two of" includes "choose the same thing twice." It doesn't the way I read it, but maybe you read it differently.
Simply put. The two text for pets and familiars makes no mentions about picking the same ability twice. You could find it by reading between the lines but I feel like such a reading is extremely loose and most likely comes from our previous experience with the game as a whole. We expect duplicates to not stack unless otherwise stated.
So for me, It does read that you can pick the same ability twice, because you can. Or else you would not be able to pick Skilled twice.
But like with Feats and Effects, gaining the benefit again does nothing except overwrite the previous benefit. Feats get around this by specifying a separate benefit when picked again. The same way Skilled does.
NorrKnekten wrote: Simply put. The two text for pets and familiars makes no mentions about picking the same ability twice. You could find it by reading between the lines but I feel like such a reading is extremely loose and most likely comes from our previous experience with the game as a whole. My reasoning has nothing to do with the game. If someone tells me "choose two of apple, banana, orange" it seems pretty clear to me that they are asking me to pick two different fruits, and that they are not including the option of picking the same fruit twice.
Quote: So for me, It does read that you can pick the same ability twice, because you can. Or else you would not be able to pick Skilled twice. Skilled says "You can select this ability repeatedly, choosing a different skill each time." So instead of being a counterexample it seems to me to reinforce the notion that you can't choose the same thing twice unless Paizo tells you you can. Why can I picked skilled twice? Because Paizo specifically said so.
Skilled is like if the fruit manager tells me "choose two of apple, banana, orange. You can select apple twice." The new 'you can select apple twice' add-on makes it more obvious that fruit guy does not mean for me to be able to select banana or orange twice.
Easl wrote: Familiars are pets and follow pet rules except where otherwise stated. PC1 p212 "You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities..."
The discussion of pet abilities starting on PC1 p259 says "choose two of..." which, in my natural language read, I would take to mean two separate things taken from the list.
For myself, things like Cantrip Connection, where you it allows a selection of something else, would be a separate thing like how I'd say you can have a Resist Energy [fire] and a Resist Energy [cold] at the same time as the benefit is different. I was surprised that a DEV said in a video that you couldn't take Cantrip Connection twice [and that your cantrip choice was locked in].
graystone wrote: Easl wrote: Familiars are pets and follow pet rules except where otherwise stated. PC1 p212 "You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities..."
The discussion of pet abilities starting on PC1 p259 says "choose two of..." which, in my natural language read, I would take to mean two separate things taken from the list.
For myself, things like Cantrip Connection, where you it allows a selection of something else, would be a separate thing like how I'd say you can have a Resist Energy [fire] and a Resist Energy [cold] at the same time as the benefit is different. I was surprised that a DEV said in a video that you couldn't take Cantrip Connection twice [and that your cantrip choice was locked in]. well yeah, The benefit of Cantrip Connection is +1 cantrip, You have already gained +1 cantrip to your maximum allowed so if you were to pick it again you would be subject to the Duplicate Effects convention.
Though the way I read it it states that you cannot change the cantrip if you were a spontanious caster. Effectively you need to decide the cantrip and can only change it trough retraining.
Easl wrote: My reasoning has nothing to do with the game. If someone tells me "choose two of apple, banana, orange" it seems pretty clear to me that they are asking me to pick two different fruits, and that they are not including the option of picking the same fruit twice. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It depends on the context too much to make a language expectation about it. It ends up like the useless spelling 'rule' "'i' before 'e' except after 'c', when making an 'a' sound, or in weird words like 'weird'".
If someone tells me to "pick my two favorite colors from this list" it is pretty clear that they need to be two different colors.
If there is a table with apples, bananas, and oranges and someone says, "you can pick two" I would not expect that I couldn't take two oranges for my lunch.
Trip.H wrote: Just to ask directly, can anyone think of a worse abuse/ balance problem than stacking Tough? Most of the abilities that affect the familiar wouldn't stack anyway. Taking Darkvision multiple times doesn't do anything. Taking Climber multiple times doesn't give a faster climb speed.
There are several that probably should be allowed to be taken multiple times. Skilled is explicitly allowed. Damage Avoidance should probably be allowed for different save types each time. Resistance to be able to have damage resistance for multiple energy types. Speech should be allowed so that the familiar can speak more than one language that the master knows.
But some of the abilities shouldn't be allowed to be taken multiple times. Cantrip Connection to have multiple additional Cantrips. Spellcasting to have multiple lower level spells available to cast with one action to command the familiar.
From the look of it, there are more abilities that I would allow to be taken multiple times than there are that I would not allow.
graystone wrote: I was surprised that a DEV said in a video that you couldn't take Cantrip Connection twice [and that your cantrip choice was locked in]. I also don't put a lot of weight on what Devs say in videos.
However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too.
Cantrip Connection wrote: if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can't otherwise change it. You get to designate one cantrip that you get every time you pick this familiar ability. You can change the cantrip through Retraining only. Otherwise it is locked in.
NorrKnekten wrote: well yeah, The benefit of Cantrip Connection is +1 cantrip, You have already gained +1 cantrip to your maximum allowed so if you were to pick it again you would be subject to the Duplicate Effects convention. You gain an additional/bonus things all the time in the game that stack because they are different things. You raise your int and you get an additional language/skill without worry about Duplicate Effects, just like you can get sneak attack and Precision ranger damage on extra damage on a single attack or Resist Energy [fire] and a Resist Energy [cold]: I personally don't see the Duplicate Effects convention when the end effect is different. I mean, you don't have to worry about using Cantrip Connection and Cantrip Expansion together even though they give the same effect [additional cantrips]. As with a lot of the game, it leaves enough wiggle room you can go either way with a ruling.
NorrKnekten wrote: Though the way I read it it states that you cannot change the cantrip if you were a spontanious caster. Effectively you need to decide the cantrip and can only change it trough retraining. It take the same amount of time to retrain the pet feat for a whole new familiar as it does to retrain Cantrip Connection. Seems kind of lame and what is it trying to prevent? I can't see any balance issues with having an open cantrip slot: Gnomes can do it and the game doesn't explode.
Finoan wrote: However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too. Yeah, but as I recall it was said it was locked period, not just for spontaneous casters.
graystone wrote: Finoan wrote: However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too. Yeah, but as I recall it was said it was locked period, not just for spontaneous casters. Which is why I don't consider game Devs on YouTube videos to be an authoritative source for rules.
The rule text for Cantrip Connection doesn't support that ruling. For a prepared caster it simply says, "You can prepare an additional cantrip". No restrictions on which Cantrip are given.
Yes, that does mean that prepared casters get a lot more benefit from Cantrip Connection than spontaneous casters do. Houserule as desired, but that is what I am reading the rules to literally say.
graystone wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: well yeah, The benefit of Cantrip Connection is +1 cantrip, You have already gained +1 cantrip to your maximum allowed so if you were to pick it again you would be subject to the Duplicate Effects convention. You gain an additional/bonus things all the time in the game that stack because they are different things. You raise your int and you get an additional language/skill without worry about Duplicate Effects, just like you can get sneak attack and Precision ranger damage on extra damage on a single attack or Resist Energy [fire] and a Resist Energy [cold]: I personally don't see the Duplicate Effects convention when the end effect is different. I mean, you don't have to worry about using Cantrip Connection and Cantrip Expansion together even though they give the same effect [additional cantrips]. As with a lot of the game, it leaves enough wiggle room you can go either way with a ruling. These examples are effects that are from different sources or give different effects from the same source. Skill increases/Attribute boosts state which level you add to your attributes without being an additional source.
You don't add a language/skill training per int you have. Rather you have x+int always, So thats not coming from any additional sources either.
You can pick Cantrip Expansion and Cantrip Connection together without a problem, They are not duplicate effects as they share a different source.
Resist Energy do get a similar but different effects depending on the damage type you select so they cannot be considered duplicate effects either unless they share selected damage types. Its not that one effect removes the other, its just that mostly they overlap.
You can get precision damage from multiple sources just as a flaming rune isnt going to stop your bespell strikes. You can combine sneak attack and confident finisher no problem. But were you to pick up sneak attacker from Assassin while being a Rogue you suddenly have two effects from the Sneak Attack class feature. They are from the same source, they add precision damage, they are duplicates.
Or maybe more obvious, Alchemist dedications and the Advanced Alchemy/Quick Alchemy benefits. You don't get more vials simply because you have multiple sources of the Quick Alchemy feature.
Compare that to Cantrip Connection which does give you another cantrip as its only effect, the exact cantrip is irrelevant especially for a prepared caster. Same Source, Same effect, They are duplicates.
graystone wrote: It take the same amount of time to retrain the pet feat for a whole new familiar as it does to retrain Cantrip Connection. Seems kind of lame and what is it trying to prevent? I can't see any balance issues with having an open cantrip slot: Gnomes can do it and the game doesn't explode. The First World Magic Feat gnomes get is not open either, They select one and need to retrain regardless of being prepared or spontanious. The open cantrip they get is from a heritage and can be swapped within 10 minutes.
Humans does gets an open one if they are prepared but that one too needs to be retrained if you are a spontanious caster.
It really is just trying to stop spontanious casters from gaining flexibility within their repertoire.
Finoan wrote: However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too.
Cantrip Connection wrote: if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can't otherwise change it. You get to designate one cantrip that you get every time you pick this familiar ability. You can change the cantrip through Retraining only. Otherwise it is locked in.
Why do you cut the first part of the sentence? "You can prepare an additional cantrip or, if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it." I absolutely see the second clause referring to the cantrip in general, not spontaneous only, so including "You can prepare an additional cantrip ...; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it." Especially when the second clause is in the same sentence after semicolon, not after comma or in a separate sentence. It looks like they put extra effort to make this reference the previous clause in full, not only its second part.
Errenor wrote: Finoan wrote: However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too.
Cantrip Connection wrote: if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can't otherwise change it. You get to designate one cantrip that you get every time you pick this familiar ability. You can change the cantrip through Retraining only. Otherwise it is locked in.
Why do you cut the first part of the sentence? "You can prepare an additional cantrip or, if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it." I absolutely see the second clause referring to the cantrip in general, not spontaneous only, so including "You can prepare an additional cantrip ...; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it." Especially when the second clause is in the same sentence after semicolon, not after comma or in a separate sentence. It looks like they put extra effort to make this reference the previous clause in full, not only its second part. Hmmm....I believe you are right, Can't believe I missed that.
Since the text about prepared and spontanious casters is a single clause the semicolon stitches prepared casters in aswell.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: These examples are effects that are from different sources or give different effects from the same source. Duplicate Effects states "When you're affected by the same thing multiple times" and does not say anything about sources. It's as applicable to sneak attack and Precision ranger's damage as it is 2 Cantrip Connections. "Same thing" could be 'additional damage' as easily as 2 Cantrip Connections. Myself, I see Cantrip Connection [light] as not the same as Cantrip Connection [dancing lights]. You can feel free to disagree, but I don't see where the actual rules can prove either stance.
I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? If so its a duplicate. Otherwise we have rules for gained effects that will tell you how to stack it, Like Bonuses,Penalties,Conditions,Resistances, Weaknesses etc. All have rules for how to stack them or rather mostly how they do not stack.
Im not even sure Resist energy is intended to be stackable for multiple resistance types but I allow that at my table.
for your statement, Not only can we point to the fact that we have abilities that say they can be picked multiple times putting them more inline to feats. But if cantrip connection is locked and require retraining then it specifically says. "This cantrip will be the one you gain every time you select this ability". By the text within the ability itself you cannot select Cantrip Connection with two different cantrips.
I believe Errenor is right because Semicolons are used in this manner. Linking independent clauses together. The correct reading should be
If prepared or have repertoire
Select a cantrip to gain each time you select the ability.
You cannot change this cantrip outside retraining.
NorrKnekten wrote: I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? Again, where is the definition of what a source is? You are free to say it's the same source as I am free to ask what a source is and the rules don't tell us either. The only place I know that even mentions sources is Focus Points from Multiple Sources and for that it's whatever gets you a focus point or a focus spell. Where do you draw the line for "the same rule element".
From that, you could say your entire class could be a source or a specific features of the class or a specific feat or... I mean, is the source of focus for the Monk the class, the feat feature, the feat Qi Spell or inner upheaval/qi rush? We had this issue with sources [and nested sources] in PF1 and the solution for that in PF2 seems to be it doesn't use sources. :P
For myself, if you're hinging an argument on Duplicate Effects, the effect would actually have to be the same/identical effect: I don't see 'sources' as relevant if the result/effect different and/or different options where picked.
A better argument is the inclusion of 'you can time this more than once' in other familiar abilities, but sadly, we see reminder text in places throughout the rules so it's not definitive that such text is a requirement: more a RAI argument IMO.
NorrKnekten wrote: I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? If so its a duplicate. Isn't this exactly the situation with the Spellcasting ability though? It's a new day, you are doing your daily prep, and your familiar gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, it gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, if you're a witch, it gets the Spellcasting ability.
That is a duplicate effect, it is from the same source, and it references the same rule element. Yes?
The definition of source here as I used it was specifically "Rule element" which I thought I clarified, we know the definition of a rule element from PC p.15.
A class is a rule element, Your initial proficiencies and health come from this.
Ancestry,background and heritage are also rule elements.
Actions,Features, Feats, Abilities are also defined as such. Spell Effects and Spells are too.
Focus points comes from none of these. They doesn't come from a rule element, but a general rule stating that your focus points are equal to the amount of focus spells you know. (unless we talking CRB in where they absolutely granted by feats)
I too believe that the effects need to be similar, Most boons already have non-stacking benefits. There is nothing explicit there so it falls under ambigious rules. Even though the convention specifies Quote: Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage. The 'Source' or Rule Element absolutely does matter as we know that some effects are merely just similar, not identical. As is the case for scenarios where you add damage or gain another spellcasting feature trough archetyping while already being a caster.
Easl wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? If so its a duplicate. Isn't this exactly the situation with the Spellcasting ability though? It's a new day, you are doing your daily prep, and your familiar gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, it gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, if you're a witch, it gets the Spellcasting ability.
That is a duplicate effect, it is from the same source, and it references the same rule element. Yes? Correct, Same rule element, same effect. The convention regarding duplicate effects kicks in and only one instance applies, In this case the one you selected last if we really want to follow the convention.
The exceptions to these are abilities that state they have a different effect when picked more than once. Like Skilled.
NorrKnekten wrote: Easl wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? If so its a duplicate. Isn't this exactly the situation with the Spellcasting ability though? It's a new day, you are doing your daily prep, and your familiar gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, it gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, if you're a witch, it gets the Spellcasting ability.
That is a duplicate effect, it is from the same source, and it references the same rule element. Yes? Correct, Same rule element, same effect. The convention regarding duplicate effects kicks in and only one instance applies, In this case the one you selected last if we really want to follow the convention.
The exceptions to these are abilities that state they have a different effect when picked more than once. Like Skilled. Nowhere is 'rules element' equated to 'source' in the rules. ALL 'rules element' means is that it's something capitalized [or italicized for spells] that has a specific rule about it. Anything else is what you're reading into it. Strike is a rules element: a creature isn't immune to subsequent Strikes once it's been affected by the first. Poison is a rules element. Being Poisoned doesn't prevent you from being Poisoned again. Disease is a rules element and you can be affected by multiple ones.
The rules element section is 100% moot in determining sources and sources have no direct impact on the game as no rules element calls for them [outside focus points].
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Cantrip Connection wrote: You can prepare an additional cantrip or, if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it. So, when you take Cantrip Connection, you gain the ability to prepare an additional Cantrip, but you do not designate the identity of the Cantrip at that time. You only designate the specific Cantrip if you have a repertoire. So the "can't otherwise change it" can only refer to the repertoire.
That tells me that prepared casters gain an additional Cantrip slot that they can prepare in, and could completely change out all of their Cantrips every day if they wished. For prepared casters, nothing is ever "locked in".
graystone wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Easl wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? If so its a duplicate. Isn't this exactly the situation with the Spellcasting ability though? It's a new day, you are doing your daily prep, and your familiar gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, it gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, if you're a witch, it gets the Spellcasting ability.
That is a duplicate effect, it is from the same source, and it references the same rule element. Yes? Correct, Same rule element, same effect. The convention regarding duplicate effects kicks in and only one instance applies, In this case the one you selected last if we really want to follow the convention.
The exceptions to these are abilities that state they have a different effect when picked more than once. Like Skilled. Nowhere is 'rules element' equated to 'source' in the rules. ALL 'rules element' means is that it's something capitalized [or italicized for spells] that has a specific rule about it. Anything else is what you're reading into it. Strike is a rules element: a creature isn't immune to subsequent Strikes once it's been affected by the first. Poison is a rules element. Being Poisoned doesn't prevent you from being Poisoned again. Disease is a rules element and you can be affected by multiple ones.
The rules element section is 100% moot in determining sources and sources have no direct impact on the game as no rules element calls for them [outside focus points]. I just told you my use of source simply means the rule element the effect came from. Its my own words in describing what the game convention says about "The same Thing", A convention that becomes increasingly more obvious the more one look.
Your examples here aren't even covered by the convention, Strike is not an ongoing effect so you arent affected by two strikes at the same time, You can't have two instances of the same poison or disease on you either. Poison just have a chance of getting worse when exposed again but doesn't even increase the duration. Two different diseases are still two different rules elements despite sharing the disease trait.
pH unbalanced wrote: Cantrip Connection wrote: You can prepare an additional cantrip or, if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it. So, when you take Cantrip Connection, you gain the ability to prepare an additional Cantrip, but you do not designate the identity of the Cantrip at that time. You only designate the specific Cantrip if you have a repertoire. So the "can't otherwise change it" can only refer to the repertoire.
That tells me that prepared casters gain an additional Cantrip slot that they can prepare in, and could completely change out all of their Cantrips every day if they wished. For prepared casters, nothing is ever "locked in". Not going to lie, I thought so too until Errenor pointed it out earlier and I remembered the usage of the semicolon binding the entirety of the two sentences together, So "Can't otherwise change it" does seem to be the case regardless. Ofcourse some people may read it differently but I think they are right.
I still think equalizing feats and other abilities and game effects on characters is wrong. And so is equalizing becoming affected by effects and getting abilities for your characters. You guys yourself demonstrate here that this only muddies things and needlessly complicates discussion.
That is also true, Sadly we do not have any text forbidding taking multiple of the same feat or ability. But we see clear intent that you arent meant to get the benefit from the same ability/feat twice.
Which leads to my assumption that duplicates do not stack unless otherwise stated. We have plenty of explicit rules as to how we handle effects of various types on characters, but without references to a behavior not called out in the rules we really do not have any for feats or abilities.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Pf2e at its core principles does not allow you to double up. But the only thing I can point to is the convention of duplicate effects. We also know paizo has been known to not hardcode rules at times when its already 'understood' by the community.
Errenor wrote: You guys yourself demonstrate here that this only muddies things and needlessly complicates discussion. I mostly agree. That's why I wouldn't base my GM decision on a treasure hunt through the rules beyond just what it says in the familiar and pet sections. Read those sections for what it says about abilities; apply the ability rules as makes the most sense for you or your table; be willing to adjust if actual play makes that seem like a bad decision. My 'best understanding read' is that the pet rules expect you can't take any pet ability more than once unless the pet ability itself says otherwise. But if some other GM read it differently, I'd certainly not object.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
