Recent Posts
I've got a Rog2/Wiz3/Clr3/MT3 in my game who wants to take Improved Familiar and get a mephit. The PC is 11th level now and if they take another level of MT, will they qualify for the Improved Familiar feat?
My thinking is they won't because PrC class levels never stack for anything other than spell slots, spell levels, and caster level when casting spells. Yet the title on the table in IF says, "Arcane Spellcaster Level" and technically the PC would be a 7th level spellcaster.
Second, what would you say to the argument that "it's not game breaking to allow the PrC class to have more powerful improved familiars as they would still be considered 3rd level for the enhancements to the base creature." Presumably that last part is because the PC in question is "Wiz3".
Thanks.
All the feat requires is a high-enough arcane caster level. Your character's rogue and cleric levels won't help, but his wizard and mystic theurge levels do; caster level is precisely what those mystic theurge levels increase, after all.
Your PC has a caster level of 6th for wizard, and thus qualifies for anything on the Improved Familiar list but the caster level 7th critters. And if you gain another level of MT, you'll qualify even for those!
Okay, thanks. :)
So what is the power level of the familiar going to be since the enhancements received by the familiar are based on the master's class levels? In other words, how should I interpret this:
Familiar Ability Descriptions: All familiars have special abilities (or impart abilities to their masters) depending on the master's combined level in classes that grant familiars, as shown on the table below. The abilities are cumulative.
I assume that the mystic theurge PrC doesn't grant a familiar, right?
Edit: Oh, and another question... In the old days there was a time-consuming ritual to call a familiar. Is that gone in PF? I can't find any trace of it...
your character would count as 6th level as for what creatures he could choose from on the improved familiar list, but he would only count as 3rd level for what benefits his familiar received by level.
as far as I can tell yes the exdpensive and time consuming ritual seems to be a thing of the past... some ritual probably still needs to be done but I am guessing that it is inexpensive and assumed to just be hand waved.
Note that many of the abilities of the familiar will be determined by your character and not just by his arcane caster level. Things like the familiar's hitpoints, base attack, base saves, skill points, and effective HD will be determined by the master's total character level. The special abilities (such as Speak with Master and Spell Resistance), natural armor bonus, and Intelligence are determined by your Wizard levels (or Arcane Bloodline levels for a sorcerer).
Yes, thanks Father Dale. I was thinking about the special abilities, actually.
If a familiar is lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.
Yeah, I saw that. But what about a familiar that is sent away? Is that considered "lost or dies"?
Yes, thanks Father Dale. I was thinking about the special abilities, actually.
Yeah, I saw that. But what about a familiar that is sent away? Is that considered "lost or dies"?If a familiar is lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.
What do you mean by sent away?
I think he is thinking about taking the improved familiar feat at higher level, so he wants to get rid of his toad or what ever he currently has to get something from the IF list... I am not sure I would allow a player to simply 'dismiss' a familiar though in my game.
How else would they get the improved familiar?
maybe the new familiar shows up and eats the old one... or you wait until your old familiar dies before you get the new improved one... simply sending the familiar you originally chose away to get one that you like better at a later time is seems too meta-gamey to me and it sets a precedent where in a character might decide he needs a bonus to fort saves on the upcoming adventure so he sends away his rave and gets a rat, then the next adventure is in his opinion going to require a lot of slinking around in the shadows and darkness, so he sends the rat away and picks up a cat or an owl... I am 100% positive that such round robin familiar exchanges are not what was intended... and while I could see allowing a specific exception for a character taking the improved familiar feat, I think it opens the door for further abuses.
Note also that if you can simply send your old familiar away, then the line in the improved familiar feat about "only when you can acquire a new familiar" isn't really much of a limitation.
I am 100% positive that such round robin familiar exchanges are not what was intended...
Note also that if you can simply send your old familiar away, then the line in the improved familiar feat about "only when you can acquire a new familiar" isn't really much of a limitation.
On the other hand a player taking a feat, but not being able to use it was not intended either. It may be an issue for the DM to decide how it happens. Maybe a ritual transfers the old familiar's powers, and personality to a new body, kind of like reincarnate, but without the familiar actually dying.
I am 100% positive that such round robin familiar exchanges are not what was intended...
Note also that if you can simply send your old familiar away, then the line in the improved familiar feat about "only when you can acquire a new familiar" isn't really much of a limitation.
On the other hand a player taking a feat, but not being able to use it was not intended either. It may be an issue for the DM to decide how it happens. Maybe a ritual transfers the old familiar's powers, and personality to a new body, kind of like reincarnate, but without the familiar actually dying.
that seems like a good compromise.
Forcing this rule on a player will only result in the wizard simply killing the old familiar.at which point I would seriously consider having a god of magic curse the character with a permanent negative level until he or she somehow atoned for this atrocity.
... which would be an arbitrary punishment for a player that is just playing by the rules as they are stated in the book.
... which would be an arbitrary punishment for a player that is just playing by the rules as they are stated in the book.Forcing this rule on a player will only result in the wizard simply killing the old familiar.at which point I would seriously consider having a god of magic curse the character with a permanent negative level until he or she somehow atoned for this atrocity.
No it would be deliberately punishing a player who was trying to game the system, and if the player continued to try and do so he or she could find a different gaming group to play in.
Mistwalker
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
at which point I would seriously consider having a god of magic curse the character with a permanent negative level until he or she somehow atoned for this atrocity.
... which would be an arbitrary punishment for a player that is just playing by the rules as they are stated in the book.
No it would be deliberately punishing a player who was trying to game the system, and if the player continued to try and do so he or she could find a different gaming group to play in.
I can see having a consequence for player gaming the system (your example of a player changing familiars for changing "dungeons"), but if all the player wanted to do was to change familiars to be able to use the Improved Familiar feat, why would you impede that?
You seem to be stating that you would punish a player (not let them "trade" in the old familiar for a new one) for wanting to use the new feat that they had "paid" for. May I suggest that you discuss it with any player talking about taking the feat (or even when they make the bond vs familiar choice for their caster)?
I will finally be able to be a player in an upcoming game and I plan on playing a mage who has a familiar. At 3rd level, I plan on taking Improved Familiar, where I hope to involve my mage and his familiar in a ritual to have the "celestial" template added to his familiar. Later, if an opportunity for a different familiar (I have a weakness for Pseudo-dragons and have wanted one for years -been GMing), my mage will not simply abandon the old familiar, but will likely roleplay the change, perhaps the familiar is getting a little old and my mage is feeling guilty about dragging them around (or the familiar wants a family).
Might I suggest that if you have a player who starts to "game" with familiars, rather than throw a negative at him, just have no animal who responds to his request for a familiar. If I recall properly, a familiar is almost part of you, so will want to be appreciated and not treated as a disposable asset. Once the player realises this and has a priest cast an "atonement" on them, then they can get a familiar.
I have a problem when a God (or Gods) throw curses on players, as it will feel like abuse of GM powers, especially when the players ask why the God(s) haven't thrown more powerful curses as those that have murdered their clergy, burned their temples and desecrated the ground that they stood on?
Now Hold on there... I never said that I would not allow a player to work out a way to trade up for an improved familiar (although I probably would not make it quite as easy as just the character saying "I don't like you any more Mr. toad, hit the bricks!", honestly I would probably just make the character go through two separate 8 hour rituals that cost 200 gp each, one to sever the connection to the old familiar, and one to establish the connection to the new one... and I would inform the player of this when and if I was told that he or she was thinking of taking the improved familiar feat)... reread my posts... I say stuff like "...I could see allowing a specific exception for a character taking the improved familiar feat..." and responding to one of Wraithstrike's suggestions with "that seems like a good compromise."
Now Hold on there... I never said that I would not allow a player to work out a way to trade up for an improved familiar (although I probably would not make it quite as easy as just the character saying "I don't like you any more Mr. toad, hit the bricks!"
How about Mr. Toad TURNS INTO new familiar? No swapping, it's an upgrade! I mean, you upgraded the critter into a magic beast in the first place, now you can upgrade it into an outsider, dragon, or whatnot.
It should be said some familiars an gain a template from the "Improved Familiar" feat, and to 'change out' a familiar should be done through roleplaying I agree, but that being said, some familiar choices are difficult to explain as a reincarnation/metamorphisis type event...
Example... Bob the Wizard has a Rat familiar, he gains a few levels and decides he wants to take Improved Familiar, and he (being evil alignment) plumps for a Imp or a Quasit, being Evil outsiders, they would 'appear' and likely devour the old familiar. A Wizard shouldnt really be punished for this - they are evil after all and the Imp or Quasit is simply acting according to its unholy nature.
And as for a Good or Neutral Wizard, sure, they could 'evolve' their familiar into some celestial counterpart or simply they meaningfully part ways (as others have suggested - the familiar is released to live its life freely as animals of its type, it perhaps grew old, etc.), but I do not condone swapping out familiars per dungeon - a familiar isnt entirely dumb, it would misbehave, act inappropiately and so forth.
Now Hold on there... I never said that I would not allow a player to work out a way to trade up for an improved familiar (although I probably would not make it quite as easy as just the character saying "I don't like you any more Mr. toad, hit the bricks!", honestly I would probably just make the character go through two separate 8 hour rituals that cost 200 gp each, one to sever the connection to the old familiar, and one to establish the connection to the new one... and I would inform the player of this when and if I was told that he or she was thinking of taking the improved familiar feat)... reread my posts... I say stuff like "...I could see allowing a specific exception for a character taking the improved familiar feat..." and responding to one of Wraithstrike's suggestions with "that seems like a good compromise."
+1 just for mentioning my name.
Example... Bob the Wizard has a Rat familiar, he gains a few levels and decides he wants to take Improved Familiar, and he (being evil alignment) plumps for a Imp or a Quasit, being Evil outsiders, they would 'appear' and likely devour the old familiar. A Wizard shouldnt really be punished for this - they are evil after all and the Imp or Quasit is simply acting according to its unholy nature.
Ah-HAH! It was an Imp/Quasit all along! Only now does it choose to reveal itself! Muaha-ha-ha...erm...<cough>
Or, prove you're eeeevil enough...kill your familiar for MORE POWER! While you're at it, kill your apprentice too. I mean, why go half-way?
No it would be deliberately punishing a player who was trying to game the system, and if the player continued to try and do so he or she could find a different gaming group to play in.... which would be an arbitrary punishment for a player that is just playing by the rules as they are stated in the book.Forcing this rule on a player will only result in the wizard simply killing the old familiar.at which point I would seriously consider having a god of magic curse the character with a permanent negative level until he or she somehow atoned for this atrocity.
I think it's safe to say, that if you were my DM you would lose a player or get punched in the mouth...