He sundered my familiar!

[farscapesg1]

I can't access Wizard's site from work (damn corporate Internet filtering) but I wanted to chime in even though I haven't gotten a chance to read the article.

Why is any of this even needed? Why not just use the cover rules already provided by the core books?

I might be mistaken, but I thought there were already rules for cover if a tiny creature occupies the same space as another creature. I know there are rules for grappling creatures being the same square. Just apply the soft cover rules.

As for being in a carrier, pocket, etc. cover again takes care of the issue. A cage with bars and openings would provide partial cover. Being completely hidden in a pocket or under a cloak could count as full cover.

Like I said, I haven't read the articles but it just seems to be adding more difficulty than is needed.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

My familiar is going to take the mounted combat feat and max out ride. Then when I'm in combat, he's going to ride me, and when someone attacks me he'll use the mounted combat feat to counter their attack roll!

Actually, I think rules regarding how you HIT a rider versus hitting a mount are far superior to using rules for Sunder.

Seriously, though, I don't think a familiar on a person counts as riding. "Riding" is not just hanging on to a creature, it is directing its actions (or attempting to direct its actions). Unless your familiar is steering you I don't think it's riding you.

A halfling is on the back of a centaur - is the halfling riding a mount or is he better to be considered as carried equipment for purposes of hitting him? Is the centaur NOT a mount just because it is deciding on its own where to go and what to do? What rules would you use if you had an Awakened mount? Could it no longer be used AS a mount? Would a human "rider" on an awakened horse have to be considered as carried equipment for purposes of hitting him just because his horse is able to make the decisions about where to go?

I think it was a bad choice to consider a living creature to be equipment for purposes of hitting them in combat. Since the rules just do not cover the eventuality of hitting a familiar that is "carried" by someone, even put in a pocket or backpack, it'd be better to have invented new rules out of whole cloth than to adapt SUNDER. I haven't looked too closely at their suggestions so it might actually work okay, but I'd rather see the wording of Sunder repeated exactly with a new name attached to it than see the word Sunder actually used in reference to what's being done. Yes, it's that important.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Actually, I think rules regarding how you HIT a rider versus hitting a mount are far superior to using rules for Sunder.
A halfling is on the back of a centaur - is the halfling riding a mount or is he better to be considered as carried equipment for purposes of hitting him? Is the centaur NOT a mount just because it is deciding on its own where to go and what to do? What rules would you use if you had an Awakened mount? Could it no longer be used AS a mount? Would a human "rider" on an awakened horse have to be considered as carried equipment for purposes of hitting him just because his horse is able to make the decisions about where to go?

I think it was a bad choice to consider a living creature to be equipment for purposes of hitting them in combat. Since the rules just do not cover the eventuality of hitting a familiar that is "carried" by someone, even put in a pocket or backpack, it'd be better to have invented new rules out of whole cloth than to adapt SUNDER. I haven't looked too closely at their suggestions so it might actually work okay, but I'd rather see the wording of Sunder repeated exactly with a new name attached to it than see the word Sunder actually used in reference to what's being done. Yes, it's that important.

Then label Master Blaster from the Mad Max movies.
That little Halfling was certainly directing the Ogre.

 

[Alzrius]

I can't access Wizard's site from work (damn corporate Internet filtering) but I wanted to chime in even though I haven't gotten a chance to read the article.

Why is any of this even needed? Why not just use the cover rules already provided by the core books?

I think the idea here is that cover is actually something that will stop an attack, if someone tried to attack you through the cover (e.g. if there's a rock between you and me, and I swing a sword at you, the rock will stop the swing). This is if someone just carries the familiar under their clothes...a shirt won't stop an attack if you swing at the bulge under the shirt.

 

[billd91]

Personally I'd say that in such a case, the easiest thing to do would be to use the familiar's AC but treat the attacker as an invisible attacker (+2 to hit and the familiar gets no Dex bonus to AC). The attack would draw an AoO from the person the familiar is on and the familiar would benefit from concealment.

So in this case, the main difference is the familiar is +2 to be hit and it gets no Dex bonus at all compared to the rules suggested by Skip. Personally, I'd go with the Sunder rules because then the guy carrying the familiar, whose item be it pouch or bulge is being targeted, still gets full defense for it. That's a little better for the familiar and makes sense to me. I figure that any PC would be trying to dodge a blow aimed at his concealed familiar as much as he'd dodge a blow aimed at himself... and he can see the attack coming.

 

[The Iron Mark]

Isn't there a Familiar Pocket spell that creates an extradimensional space for your familiar? Then your familiar being "sundered" doesn't come into play .