Clockwork Familiars, Why aren't they Legal?


Pathfinder Society

Grand Lodge 1/5

From Pathfinder Adventure Path #63: The Asylum Stone

How would you folks feel if a Clockwork Familiar was made Legal?

Clockwork Familiar

Clockwork Familiar wrote:
A spellcaster of at least 7th level who takes the Improved Familiar feat can select a clockwork familiar as a familiar.

Do you feel this Familiar is too strong in comparison to the others available from the Imp. Familiar feat?

Do you think thematically it doesn't mesh well?

I personally think they are pretty cool(clockwork? who doesn't think it is cool!?). With technology being a big theme in this new season I don't think anyone would bat an eye at it anymore than a Quasit or a Fairie Dragon following someone around.

I will admit I am not the most familiar(Ha) with the stats of other options available with the Imp. Familiar feat but I am not seeing anything that would make it overpowered. While very interesting, I don't feel its "Item installation" is any more powerful than at-will invisibility and other SLAs that other familiars receive.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Clockwork isn't really tech, it's an ersatz form of magic.

4/5 *

Well, it's been around for a few years and wasn't made legal when they sanctioned Shattered Star... I'm guessing the reasoning was thought out at that time. Why should it change?

Grand Lodge 1/5

I feel it is a very interesting and flavorful Familiar and it is a shame for it to go to waste! If it is an ersatz form of magic it would great for a back-story of a character who has struggled forming a bond with a real creature and thus created one himself/herself!

I wasn't aware of its existence until recently due to it only listed in the AP. I'd like to think I am not the only one and if more people are made aware of it perhaps we could have some others weigh in on it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I'm guessing the reasoning was thought out at that time. Why should it change?

This statement is horrifying to my history major brain. People that say, “It’s always been that way, why should it change now?” scare the living heck out of me.

Like Thewms said though the clockwork familiar is not all that powerful compared to many other improved familiars. So there does not seem much logic in making it a non-playable familiar.

Grand Lodge 1/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Well, it's been around for a few years and wasn't made legal when they sanctioned Shattered Star... I'm guessing the reasoning was thought out at that time. Why should it change?

Because I don't see a reason for it not to be legal!

How do you feel about it though?

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I would like to see this made legal for play, I agree with GM Lamplighter that it is unlikely to be reversed. But, that never stopped me from trying before so why should I start now?

There is an option for a player to obtain access a clockwork critter very early in their adventuring career. Thus, since one form of a clockwork critter is available to anyone, not just wizards or peeps who take Improved Familiar, I think clockwork familiars should be allowed for PFS play. I have a cleric who has ranks in craft: clockwork and Knowledge: Arcana who has access to the aforementioned clockwork critter. My opinion is that the clockwork familiar is no more or less powerful than an imp or quasit.

An issue/problem I see with the familiar is the potion/scroll/wand feature. I can spend the money for a zero level of each of the above in return for a 1st level spell, and in the case of the wand feature, multiple uses of a better than I paid for spell like ability. Thus, if we restrict or qualify that the wand scroll potion be of at least first level, then I see no problem with allowing these features.

The wand feature is still problematic though. If the language was changed to say that every time the familiar hocked a loogee at a critter, a charge was drained with the option of dropping two for 2x damage as written. With this optional language, I would allow a zero level spell wand to be an option.

I would like to see this changed. It might get me to play a wizard.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, just because you think something should be legal for play, no one will listen to you unless you tell them why you think it should be legal. Grind the gears and post your reasoning as to why this should be legal for play.

4/5

Creating an argument for something being legal for play can be a little tricky when it's not all that clear why it's not legal in first place. From what I understand these are the general reasons things aren't PFS legal.

It's evil: Like Anti-Paladins, clerics of evil gods and Hellknights
Not conducive to cooperative play: Like Wild Ragers and fireballs
May be able to use a class feature of another class better than the original class: Like Hex Channelers and Brawlers
Doesn't fit the flavour of organized play: Like shotguns and muskets
Is just plain too powerful: Like Pummeling Charge when it may have applied to armed attacks and Eidolons

I do love Pathfinder but I've only been playing for five months and I've already given up on trying to figure out the logic of what makes PFS tick.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes things are left off in the interest of including them on Chronicle sheets later. This is especially true for equipment made out of other creatures (e.g. hamatula hide) and equipment made by creatures with minimal friendly contact with typical societies on Golarion (e.g. many drow and derro items). It is also the case for a few familiars.

The decision to restrict the clockwork familiar predates my working at Paizo by a few months, so I am not sure whether this particular option being unavailable was a conscious decision or a simple oversight.

jon dehning wrote:
While I would like to see this made legal for play, I agree with GM Lamplighter that it is unlikely to be reversed.

I think this could be a good candidate to include on a Tier 3–7 or 5–9 Chronicle sheet, but I would want to ensure that it matches the flavor of the adventure—and ideally shows up during the adventure. There is at least one place I know of where these have appeared before, and there are several other locations that would make sense.

Grand Lodge 1/5

John Compton wrote:


...I am not sure whether this particular option being unavailable was a conscious decision or a simple oversight...I think this could be a good candidate to include on a Tier 3–7 or 5–9 Chronicle sheet...

While I know you are busy folk is it possible that restrictions like this to get reexamined or should we just hold out hope for a chronicle?

Thank you for chiming in, by the way!

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

Thewms wrote:
John Compton wrote:


...I am not sure whether this particular option being unavailable was a conscious decision or a simple oversight...I think this could be a good candidate to include on a Tier 3–7 or 5–9 Chronicle sheet...

While I know you are busy folk is it possible that restrictions like this to get reexamined or should we just hold out hope for a chronicle?

Thank you for chiming in, by the way!

It can be productive to bring it up. That's one way that I know what would most excite people on a Chronicle sheet.

5/5

Chronicle sheet means use in Core,too...

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

John Compton wrote:
Thewms wrote:
John Compton wrote:


...I am not sure whether this particular option being unavailable was a conscious decision or a simple oversight...I think this could be a good candidate to include on a Tier 3–7 or 5–9 Chronicle sheet...

While I know you are busy folk is it possible that restrictions like this to get reexamined or should we just hold out hope for a chronicle?

Thank you for chiming in, by the way!

It can be productive to bring it up. That's one way that I know what would most excite people on a Chronicle sheet.

I do like the use of Chronicle sheets to open up cool options.

However, I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to strongly/blatantly hint at the possibility of the option in the adventuring blurb.

"The Society is doing a favor for Wizard X so that he'll tell them more about his process for making clockwork familiars."

I think it's sad if you discover a cool boon on the wrong character. Like one who isn't a caster, or who has the wrong alignment for an Improved Familiar. These are rare opportunities. Sure, there's a workaround by either using GM stars, GMing the adventure yourself, or just by hearsay from people who've played the adventure before. But those aren't really nice workarounds.

But I think it's worth considering, whether advertising these "stakes" of the adventure upfront might not be a good move. Compare it to faction boons in adventures: I think the "this adventure advances the X storyline" thing works very well.

It's not something that's needed for every such option, but I think for some of them, yeah.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Ascalaphus wrote:


I think it's sad if you discover a cool boon on the wrong character. Like one who isn't a caster, or who has the wrong alignment for an Improved Familiar. These are rare opportunities. Sure, there's a workaround by either using GM stars, GMing the adventure yourself, or just by hearsay from people who've played the adventure before. But those aren't really nice workarounds.

How is GMing a scenario with a cool boon for people who haven't played it yet "not a nice workaround"? I think it's the "nicest" way that you can get a cool boon, by giving back to the community.

Grand Lodge 2/5

dwayne germaine wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


I think it's sad if you discover a cool boon on the wrong character. Like one who isn't a caster, or who has the wrong alignment for an Improved Familiar. These are rare opportunities. Sure, there's a workaround by either using GM stars, GMing the adventure yourself, or just by hearsay from people who've played the adventure before. But those aren't really nice workarounds.

How is GMing a scenario with a cool boon for people who haven't played it yet "not a nice workaround"? I think it's the "nicest" way that you can get a cool boon, by giving back to the community.

Right, because I loved it when my fighter got a super unique familiar as a boon. Sure, I can go back and GM it, but the first time is kind of a slap in the face. "Here's something unique that you can't get again ever and can't use at all."

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

Most Wizards don't use Familiars anymore in favor of the Bonded Object to have an (once a day) end around from the horrid Vancian casting limitation.

Most likely it would be Witches that would vie for the improved familiar. (They have to have one)

Just sayin'.

Yeah, Claudekennilol, I ran into that particular circumstance when I realized that an Axe Beak could not be gained as a Familiar for my Sorcerer as Animal Companions are not the same.

So disappointing.

Grand Lodge 2/5

thaX wrote:

Most Wizards don't use Familiars anymore in favor of the Bonded Object to have an (once a day) end around from the horrid Vancian casting limitation.

Most likely it would be Witches that would vie for the improved familiar. (They have to have one)

Just sayin'.

Yeah, Claudekennilol, I ran into that particular circumstance when I realized that an Axe Beak could not be gained as a Familiar for my Sorcerer as Animal Companions are not the same.

So disappointing.

Dang, I wasn't even talking about that one but you bring up another good point. That's two cool super useful unique things I've been cheated out of.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please reconsider whether "cheated" is the language you want to use.

"That's two opportunities I missed." seems fairer. Or, more productively: "That's two reasons to sit behind the GM's screen."

4/5 *

While saying a particular scenario might be good for certain classes is ok, I would hate to have players choosing their PCs based on the Chronicle. "Oh, look, here's another table of 6 druids and their pets, because they all want the AC boon!"

Not everyone gets everything, and that is not being cheated - it's called life.

Grand Lodge 2/5

You may not agree with me but that's definitely the word I intended to use. I know it's not a big deal and I really couldn't care less, but yeah, it's an intentional decision by the design team to make it so that we will sometimes receive things that are absolutely useless to a large subset of characters that would be useful to others.

If I wanted to play life I wouldn't play a fantasy game.

Again, it really doesn't matter as it's just a game, but obviously not everyone has to have the same opinion as you, either.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose it's just differing styles of play. When one of my PCs was rescued from Bonekeep by another player's goat animal companion, I took the opportunity to change my character's planned path, took a level of witch, and "kept" the goat as a familiar. Now I'm 1 BAB behind where I would have been, but I let my PCs' experiences shape them. I have great story and new options because I allowed my PC to be influenced by the world around them. Likely, if I got a boon like either of those mentioned, I would do the same thing.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:

While saying a particular scenario might be good for certain classes is ok, I would hate to have players choosing their PCs based on the Chronicle. "Oh, look, here's another table of 6 druids and their pets, because they all want the AC boon!"

Not everyone gets everything, and that is not being cheated - it's called life.

Already seen that happen, I went through Quests of Perfection with 5 Paladins!

1/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Compton wrote:
Thewms wrote:
John Compton wrote:


...I am not sure whether this particular option being unavailable was a conscious decision or a simple oversight...I think this could be a good candidate to include on a Tier 3–7 or 5–9 Chronicle sheet...

While I know you are busy folk is it possible that restrictions like this to get reexamined or should we just hold out hope for a chronicle?

Thank you for chiming in, by the way!

It can be productive to bring it up. That's one way that I know what would most excite people on a Chronicle sheet.

FWIW, that sounds like a cool reward to me.

4/5 *

Volpe wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I'm guessing the reasoning was thought out at that time. Why should it change?
This statement is horrifying to my history major brain.

Hmm... yeah, I can see that. I was trying to say that it is up to the person who wants a change to justify it, rather than just say, "Why isn't it allowed?" I have been involved in the campaign a long time, so I tend to trust the options that were left out in the past were done for some good reasons. If anything, past options were *too* freely admitted (see the synthesist summoner, for example).

Just shows how old I am, that my early PFS time is now "history"... ;)

Grand Lodge 3/5

claudekennilol wrote:
dwayne germaine wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


I think it's sad if you discover a cool boon on the wrong character. Like one who isn't a caster, or who has the wrong alignment for an Improved Familiar. These are rare opportunities. Sure, there's a workaround by either using GM stars, GMing the adventure yourself, or just by hearsay from people who've played the adventure before. But those aren't really nice workarounds.

How is GMing a scenario with a cool boon for people who haven't played it yet "not a nice workaround"? I think it's the "nicest" way that you can get a cool boon, by giving back to the community.
Right, because I loved it when my fighter got a super unique familiar as a boon. Sure, I can go back and GM it, but the first time is kind of a slap in the face. "Here's something unique that you can't get again ever and can't use at all."

Yeah, I was sad too that I couldn't use this when I played through that scenario, but rather than feeling cheated of something, I said to myself, "wow, I'm going to have to GM this at some point so I can apply the chronicle to someone who can make use of it"

My point in my original post is that this is a great incentive to give back to your local community by GMing this scenario so that you can get this boon on a character who can make use of it. I'm not sure what makes this something you "can't ever get again" but I am sorry for whatever disablitiy you have that prevents you from GMing

Scarab Sages 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland

Steven Lau wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

While saying a particular scenario might be good for certain classes is ok, I would hate to have players choosing their PCs based on the Chronicle. "Oh, look, here's another table of 6 druids and their pets, because they all want the AC boon!"

Not everyone gets everything, and that is not being cheated - it's called life.

Already seen that happen, I went through Quests of Perfection with 5 Paladins!

To be fair, that was the first scenario I actually played with my paladin, and he doesn't gain a mount for his divine band. I think another player played his paladin just to keep the theme going. ;-)

5/5 5/55/55/5

John Compton wrote:
but I would want to ensure that it matches the flavor of the adventure—and ideally shows up during the adventure. There is at least one place I know of where these have appeared before, and there are several other locations that would make sense.

So when is the clash of the titans? 7:07?


Volpe wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I'm guessing the reasoning was thought out at that time. Why should it change?
This statement is horrifying to my history major brain. People that say, “It’s always been that way, why should it change now?”

Some people have always reasoned that way, why should it change now?

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

Matthew Owens wrote:
he doesn't gain a mount for his divine band.

You mean, like, Slayer?

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

dwayne germaine wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
dwayne germaine wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


I think it's sad if you discover a cool boon on the wrong character. Like one who isn't a caster, or who has the wrong alignment for an Improved Familiar. These are rare opportunities. Sure, there's a workaround by either using GM stars, GMing the adventure yourself, or just by hearsay from people who've played the adventure before. But those aren't really nice workarounds.

How is GMing a scenario with a cool boon for people who haven't played it yet "not a nice workaround"? I think it's the "nicest" way that you can get a cool boon, by giving back to the community.
Right, because I loved it when my fighter got a super unique familiar as a boon. Sure, I can go back and GM it, but the first time is kind of a slap in the face. "Here's something unique that you can't get again ever and can't use at all."

Yeah, I was sad too that I couldn't use this when I played through that scenario, but rather than feeling cheated of something, I said to myself, "wow, I'm going to have to GM this at some point so I can apply the chronicle to someone who can make use of it"

My point in my original post is that this is a great incentive to give back to your local community by GMing this scenario so that you can get this boon on a character who can make use of it. I'm not sure what makes this something you "can't ever get again" but I am sorry for whatever disablitiy you have that prevents you from GMing

That's why I brought this up: to illustrate that not everyone feels the same about it. So I thought it might be worth taking another look at.

Grand Lodge

Just want to chime in and say, it is not always possible to slip behind the screen and replay a scenario.

For example, our area is small. So if you got to play in a scenario, there is 1 or 2 people who you could GM it for (the one who GMed it for you and the guy who missed that game).

Yes, GMing is a good way to give back to the community and get a cool boon you want on a specific character. It is just not always an option and should not be lifted up as a way to invalidate another's argument.

To the main topic, that would be a cool option to make legal.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Clockwork Familiars, Why aren't they Legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society