Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7832576" data-attributes="member: 6750235">It's moot if the beast master's companion isn't dying at all.  They have the same hit points as 10 CON wizards, which isn't great but it's hitting the low end of actual PC hit points.Given the quote below, it also wouldn't matter at all because beast master companions cannot be higher priority targets and worse than familiars at the same time.  ;-) I would think taking away the familiar enabling sneak attack would challenge the rogue more than keeping it; at times anyway.What I find is the rogue can still sneak attack most of the time regardless of the familiar, making it a conditional benefit.  That's part of being in a party.The idea of ignoring the owl familiar would also apply to other sneak attack enablers.  If the target isn't focused on whatever is creating the sneak attack conditions it matters less if that enabler actually leaves at all.  The rogue could buy a mastiff trained for combat to enable sneak attack and if the enemy is choosing other targets anyway as "higher value targets" then the mastiff does not need to leave and risk AoO, and the rogue does not require find familiar.  All the mastiff needs to do is be within 5' of the opponent as an additional attacker.  This would be true regardless of what cheap creature is being used.For the record (so as not to mislead the OP), I would expect the mastiff to quickly die too for the same reason I would expect a familiar not to last.  Poor hit points.  My point was applying your playstyle equally to both the mastiff example and the owl example.  What I would look for is a sturdier choice than either for similar purpose.</blockquote>

Verification