Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Sorcerer with two familiars?


Rules Questions

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does say class levels stack for the purpose of a familiar. If it specifically said class levels stacked for the purpose of a familiar gained by arcane bond then your case would be stronger. By saying class levels stack without referencing arcane bond it is only logical that it applies to all familars, unless otherwise stated.

Quote:
evels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.

Whether it came from arcane bond or another source does not even matter.


wraithstrike wrote:

It does say class levels stack for the purpose of a familiar. If it specifically said class levels stacked for the purpose of a familiar gained by arcane bond then your case would be stronger. By saying class levels stack without referencing arcane bond it is only logical that it applies to all familars, unless otherwise stated.

Quote:
evels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.
Whether it came from arcane bond or another source does not even matter.

Just to be clear, I asked about the RAW, and you gave me your iterpretation of the RAI. It's a reasonable interpretation of RAI, but it's still RAI

Until the devs state their intentions, it would seem prudent to go by the RAW and flag it for faq.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Furious Kender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It does say class levels stack for the purpose of a familiar. If it specifically said class levels stacked for the purpose of a familiar gained by arcane bond then your case would be stronger. By saying class levels stack without referencing arcane bond it is only logical that it applies to all familars, unless otherwise stated.

Quote:
evels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.
Whether it came from arcane bond or another source does not even matter.

Just to be clear, I asked about the RAW, and you gave me your iterpretation of the RAI. It's a reasonable interpretation of RAI, but it's still RAI

Until the devs state their intentions, it would seem prudent to go by the RAW and flag it for faq.

I gave no interpretation. I simply replied to the previous post which was trying to use arcane bond as a source of proof. The use of arcane bond is not even a factor. The familiar section is important because it says casters level stack. When classes stack class abilities they use the same pool. Otherwise you have to look at each class ability seperately even though it is really the same thing. Evasion is an example of having the same ability twice, but it not stacking while uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge is an example of a stacking ability, since you don't get it twice.


It says levels of different classes stack but I only see one class being used here, the sorcerer. So that entire line doesn't seem to apply to this case since we aren't dealing different classes.

The two abilities giving the familiars here are also clearly different, so this doesn't seem comparable to getting evasion twice.


I think the clincher here is that the line in the rules for familiars reads "Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level."

It does not specify the source of the familiar, simply that if class A gives a familiar, and class B gives a familiar, their stack rather than providing a new familiar. It would then appear that you apply the extra benefits and restrictions (if any) from both classes on the familiar.

However, that means that RAW taking eldritch heritage will cause your familiar to gain abilities very rapidly (up to the level 20 mark) because it gives you 'pseudo-levels'. If you are a level 9 wizard with eldritch heritage arcane, your familiar's abilities are determined as if you were a wiz9/sorc7. Whilst I'm not sure this is RAI, or that I like it as a GM, this seems to me the most natural interpretation of RAW.

Andoran

cartmanbeck wrote:
Winterwalker wrote:


Ya OK, I'll give you that by Raw. Fair enough point.

But I'm not giving you 2 familiars based on that, as he is just gaining Arcane Bond a 2nd time, and that doesn't grant a 2nd familiar, only that he may continue to use his sorcerer class levels -2, as his effective wizard levels in regards to what level his 1 familiar is.

A normal familiar operates under the rules for arcane bond, unless otherwise pointed out.

So you think that a 7th level Tattooed Serpentine Sorcerer should have a familiar treated as if he was a 12th level Wizard? I mean, it's not super broken or anything since most Familiar abilities are based on the caster's stats, I suppose.

However, this would also allow a 5th level character to get an Imp familiar though Improved Familiar (at 5th level he would have an effective Wizard level of 8 to determine his familiar). Again, not insanely overpowering, but still not the right choice, IMHO.

I don't think we're going to come to a true consensus here, as I still think they should get two familiars.

A 7th level sorcerer gets a 7th level familiar period.

I'm more concerned with the thought that people assume this allows you to have 2 familiars not the effective level of said familiar. I never said I thought having a familiar operating above your current level was legit either, what I have said is Arcane Bond does NOT stack with itself in regards to getting 2 familiars, nor does it stack with itself from "the same class" to make a mega Sorcerer familiar.

I have said it stacks per the normal rules for taking multiple classes that have the same feature to determine your overall familiars effective level, as defined in the write up for Arcane Bond.

I'm not advocating you give a Sorcerer more power by manipulating a loophole in this way. I think I have been very verbose on that, with nice examples and everything. To misquote me there is rather disheartening.

The bloodline is very loose in it's write up, and didn't need to be so eloquent designed or worded at the time as there wasn't another way for a Sorcerer to get a familiar.

Now that there is a case for confusion, you need to go with what little IS written. The bloodline power does make a reference to gaining a familiar as a wizard of -2 levels. How does a wizard get a familiar? Arcane Bond, what rules should you use for this ability? Arcane Bond. Does the bloodline specifically state, this allows you to have another familiar? no. Is there any other way to get two familiars currently as a reference that doesn't use the Arcane Bond Mechanic to tie to this? no. The general rules for familiars are tied to this feature, and there's no specific rules printed I could find to prove otherwise.

Seems cut and dry to me. Certain FAQ worthy.


Winterwalker wrote:


A 7th level sorcerer gets a 7th level familiar period. [...]

what I have said is Arcane Bond does NOT stack with itself in regards to getting 2 familiars, nor does it stack with itself from "the same class" to make a mega Sorcerer familiar.

I have said it stacks per the normal rules for taking multiple classes that have the same feature to determine your overall familiars effective level, as defined in the write up for Arcane Bond.
[...]

So on the one hand you argue that this feature comes from the "same class" and on the other hand you want to tell me that it is as taking "multiple classes"?

Don't get me wrong - neither believe I that it is right to get two familiars nor do I believe that a mega-familiar could be right.
But the way you try to state this by the rules is dubious as best.


wraithstrike wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It does say class levels stack for the purpose of a familiar. If it specifically said class levels stacked for the purpose of a familiar gained by arcane bond then your case would be stronger. By saying class levels stack without referencing arcane bond it is only logical that it applies to all familars, unless otherwise stated.

Quote:
evels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.
Whether it came from arcane bond or another source does not even matter.

Just to be clear, I asked about the RAW, and you gave me your iterpretation of the RAI. It's a reasonable interpretation of RAI, but it's still RAI

Until the devs state their intentions, it would seem prudent to go by the RAW and flag it for faq.

I gave no interpretation. I simply replied to the previous post which was trying to use arcane bond as a source of proof. The use of arcane bond is not even a factor. The familiar section is important because it says casters level stack. When classes stack class abilities they use the same pool. Otherwise you have to look at each class ability seperately even though it is really the same thing. Evasion is an example of having the same ability twice, but it not stacking while uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge is an example of a stacking ability, since you don't get it twice.

People are claiming that because the RAW says that levels of differet classes stacks, therefore the RAW states you can never have 2 familiars. This interpretation may have been what the devs intended, but it is an interpretation. Under this interpretation you then run into a problem of how levels of the same class stack. You can call this a hole in the rules or whatnot, but please do not mistake what you reasonably think the rules mean for RAW.

It is unclear. It needs an faq to resolve the issues of whether you can you have 2 familiars from the same class and if not, how do levels of the same class stack.

Grand Lodge

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

2. This issue doesn't need a FAQ, it needs you to ask your GM. This is why we have GMs, to rule on corner cases that almost never come up, that would take hours for developers to work on instead of creating new content. (If you are the GM, make the call and move on to making awesome adventures!)

(To me, anyway, this issue *is* clear by RAW. A familiar IS a form of arcane bond, as defined under the wizard class, which also states you can only have one arcane bond. Just because the rules for an archetype don't re-reference all of that doesn't mean they go away. That's like saying that a orc isn't a humanoid, because you found one reference that just called it an orc instead of humanoid (orc). )


yikes, guess Im going to have to go retrain my duelist. I got him a familiar through eldritch heritage, but they get bonded weapons... oh well

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

2. This issue doesn't need a FAQ, it needs you to ask your GM. This is why we have GMs, to rule on corner cases that almost never come up, that would take hours for developers to work on instead of creating new content. (If you are the GM, make the call and move on to making awesome adventures!)

(To me, anyway, this issue *is* clear by RAW. A familiar IS a form of arcane bond, as defined under the wizard class, which also states you can only have one arcane bond. Just because the rules for an archetype don't re-reference all of that doesn't mean they go away. That's like saying that a orc isn't a humanoid, because you found one reference that just called it an orc instead of humanoid (orc). )

But see, the fundamental thing we're disagreeing on is that the rules don't actually say "you can't have two arcane bonds". They say that levels of different classes stack for determining what level your arcane bond is, and in some of the specific alternate features it says "this cannot give you both an arcane bond and a familiar". The rules DO NOT say "this ability cannot give you two familiars". You are actually the one who is ADDING restrictions to the rules where none exist.

I agree that it's best to ask your GM. However, some GMs want to play exactly to what the rules say, and they want to know what the CORRECT answer is, not how they themselves interpret the answer. I am one of those. In my home game, with the rules written as they are, I would rule that they get two familiars, and I don't think it's incorrect. I still want to know what the rules actually specify for sure though, so please hit FAQ.


Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

Ever notice how there is no rule stating you can have both martial weapon prof and spellcasting? What about both a familiar and an animal companion?

This is because rules are additive unless some additional rule states that they don't add in that particular case.

As a result, there has been a lot of debate about whether the rule stating that familiars from different classes stack should prohibits having more than one familiars from the same class, and if so, do the levels from the same class stack (like familiars from different classes) or overlap (like evasion). However, by strict RAW, multiple rules stating you get a familiars from the same class are additive, as there is no rule saying the rules don't add when gained from the same class.

All in all, things get messy and unclear quickly. It needs an FAQ.

Andoran

Furious Kender wrote:
Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

Ever notice how there is no rule stating you can have both martial weapon prof and spellcasting? What about both a familiar and an animal companion?

This is because rules are additive unless some additional rule states that they don't add in that particular case.

As a result, there has been a lot of debate about whether the rule stating that familiars from different classes stack should prohibits having more than one familiars from the same class, and if so, do the levels from the same class stack (like familiars from different classes) or overlap (like evasion). However, by strict RAW, multiple rules stating you get a familiars from the same class are additive, as there is no rule saying the rules don't add when gained from the same class.

All in all, things get messy and unclear quickly. It needs an FAQ.

Moot points, this isn't adding spellcasting and MWP. This is akin to adding MWP and MWP to get something more than simply MWP.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Winterwalker wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

Ever notice how there is no rule stating you can have both martial weapon prof and spellcasting? What about both a familiar and an animal companion?

This is because rules are additive unless some additional rule states that they don't add in that particular case.

As a result, there has been a lot of debate about whether the rule stating that familiars from different classes stack should prohibits having more than one familiars from the same class, and if so, do the levels from the same class stack (like familiars from different classes) or overlap (like evasion). However, by strict RAW, multiple rules stating you get a familiars from the same class are additive, as there is no rule saying the rules don't add when gained from the same class.

All in all, things get messy and unclear quickly. It needs an FAQ.

Moot points, this isn't adding spellcasting and MWP. This is akin to adding MWP and MWP to get something more than simply MWP.

I'd say it's more akin to having Exotic Weapon Proficiency in one exotic weapon and Exotic Weapon Proficiency in another weapon, which means you have proficiency with both weapons.


Winterwalker wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

Ever notice how there is no rule stating you can have both martial weapon prof and spellcasting? What about both a familiar and an animal companion?

This is because rules are additive unless some additional rule states that they don't add in that particular case.

As a result, there has been a lot of debate about whether the rule stating that familiars from different classes stack should prohibits having more than one familiars from the same class, and if so, do the levels from the same class stack (like familiars from different classes) or overlap (like evasion). However, by strict RAW, multiple rules stating you get a familiars from the same class are additive, as there is no rule saying the rules don't add when gained from the same class.

All in all, things get messy and unclear quickly. It needs an FAQ.

Moot points, this isn't adding spellcasting and MWP. This is akin to adding MWP and MWP to get something more than simply MWP.

The class features are Serpentfriend and Tatoo Familiar. They are not named the same. They are not described the same. Rules are additive unless there is a rule stating they aren't.


Good lord, you'd think the way people are reacting that having two familiars is some sort of earth-shattering, game breaking ability.

As written, you gain two familiars. The text in the serpentfriend bloodline is missing the "as an arcane bond" text that it should possess. Nothing in the rules state that you may not have two familiars, yet the rules in question here state on different occasions from different abilities with different names that you gain a familiar.

There is plenty of room to debate RAI here, and I would pretty much grant you prima facie that the INTENT is to only be allowed one, due to the preponderance of the evidence of the overwhelming majority of familiar granting abilities stating this is the case. However, to employ occam's razor, the only two answers are that it was forgotten, or it is intentional. In either case, until errata is put out, you gain two familiars.

Grand Lodge

You're the GM, so of course your ruling is correct! That's the point. There's a whole Chapter in the CRB about Gamemastering, and how the GM is required to make rules judgments like this. That is RAW - the GM makes the call. I personally would rule differently, but that's me, and it is not any more valid than your interpretation.

Andoran

Furious Kender wrote:
Winterwalker wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

Ever notice how there is no rule stating you can have both martial weapon prof and spellcasting? What about both a familiar and an animal companion?

This is because rules are additive unless some additional rule states that they don't add in that particular case.

As a result, there has been a lot of debate about whether the rule stating that familiars from different classes stack should prohibits having more than one familiars from the same class, and if so, do the levels from the same class stack (like familiars from different classes) or overlap (like evasion). However, by strict RAW, multiple rules stating you get a familiars from the same class are additive, as there is no rule saying the rules don't add when gained from the same class.

All in all, things get messy and unclear quickly. It needs an FAQ.

Moot points, this isn't adding spellcasting and MWP. This is akin to adding MWP and MWP to get something more than simply MWP.

The class features are Serpentfriend and Tatoo Familiar. They are not named the same. They are not described the same. Rules are additive unless there is a rule stating they aren't.

Then explain to me the rules for serpent friend, without using Arcane Bond. If you can, you win.

p.s. please cite this rule you are talking about when you say "Rules are additive unless there is a rule stating they aren't." I want to re-read that one.

Andoran

Robb Smith wrote:

Good lord, you'd think the way people are reacting that having two familiars is some sort of earth-shattering, game breaking ability.

As written, you gain two familiars. The text in the serpentfriend bloodline is missing the "as an arcane bond" text that it should possess. Nothing in the rules state that you may not have two familiars, yet the rules in question here state on different occasions from different abilities with different names that you gain a familiar.

There is plenty of room to debate RAI here, and I would pretty much grant you prima facie that the INTENT is to only be allowed one, due to the preponderance of the evidence of the overwhelming majority of familiar granting abilities stating this is the case. However, to employ occam's razor, the only two answers are that it was forgotten, or it is intentional. In either case, until errata is put out, you gain two familiars.

No room for RAI, RAW smash!

And I don't think you have a compelling enough reason for me to agree with you. Having "arcane bond" from two sources, whether this is min/maxed like this or some other example, is still using the same mechanic. The mechanics are clear on how to handle that when you read the arcane bond write up. You get a familiar or an object, unless there's a rule that states it's allowed, RAW says you can't assume it is.

Andoran

Lamplighter wrote:

You're the GM, so of course your ruling is correct! That's the point. There's a whole Chapter in the CRB about Gamemastering, and how the GM is required to make rules judgments like this. That is RAW - the GM makes the call. I personally would rule differently, but that's me, and it is not any more valid than your interpretation.

I think everyone here cares enough to know whose reading the rules right, how they interact etc. Or else we wouldn't be spending so much energy in the RAW courtroom.

I admit that every time I write RAW I think of the Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan. Just saying.

Andoran

Furious Kender wrote:
Winterwalker wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
Lamplighter wrote:

Two points:

1. If you're playing by RAW, you can't do anything without an enabling rule. If you don't have a rule that say, "You can have 2 familiars," then you CAN'T, end of story. That's RAW.

Ever notice how there is no rule stating you can have both martial weapon prof and spellcasting? What about both a familiar and an animal companion?

This is because rules are additive unless some additional rule states that they don't add in that particular case.

As a result, there has been a lot of debate about whether the rule stating that familiars from different classes stack should prohibits having more than one familiars from the same class, and if so, do the levels from the same class stack (like familiars from different classes) or overlap (like evasion). However, by strict RAW, multiple rules stating you get a familiars from the same class are additive, as there is no rule saying the rules don't add when gained from the same class.

All in all, things get messy and unclear quickly. It needs an FAQ.

Moot points, this isn't adding spellcasting and MWP. This is akin to adding MWP and MWP to get something more than simply MWP.

The class features are Serpentfriend and Tatoo Familiar. They are not named the same. They are not described the same. Rules are additive unless there is a rule stating they aren't.

Egads! So If I play in your game, and take those features, I'll get 2 familiars, and then I can go Witch (you know, for the beat bonded archetype) as none of the others are the same name either and have 3 familiars?

I'll later upgrade them all to improved, and have 4 wand attacks going per round.

Plus they'll all be witch familiars and I'll give them more feats to really juice them up via the mechanics for Beast bonded. Once I hit level 10 I'll be 4 times more unkillable, and just plain awesome.

It's all additive right?

So then I'd realize 4 isn't quite enough and take Wizard, for the laugh, and get my 5th familiar.

I will keep a few as animals so I have interesting animal forms to change into of course, but I will make them all anthropomorphic so that can have hands and all use wands still too. (I'd be sure to try and grab a vampire body or two, as they have souls, and would be great to have on my side for night missions.)

But then, you wait until I hit level 10, and I kill them all, so they can magic jar into new, more powerful bodies...oh man. The power then would be sweet indeed my friend.

5 save or die effects a round versus anything with a soul!

Mmmm Witches!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. This ins't a contest.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

note that "Familiar tattoo" says: grant a familiar AS an ARCANE BOND.
it also clearly specifies that levels stacks with wizard/witches for familiar level AND mentions that you cannot have both familiar and bonded object.
so you won't get a duplicate familiar from multiclassing into Wizard/witch

serpentfriend does not mention the arcane bond part ("gain a viper familiar")
so either a 2nd familiar or a single of level SORC + (SORC -2)

now add eldritch heritage (arcane), and you get an arcane bond again, at level -2
so either a 3rd familiar or a single of level : Sorc + (Sorc-2) + (Sorc-2)

all this with a single-classed level 3 tattooed sorcerer (serpentine) with 2 feats (skill focus and eldritch heritage) - which is the bulid using basic RAW.

at level 8, your familiar will be level 20
or you'll have 3 : one lvl 8 and 2 lvl 6

I'm on the side of the 3 familiars, but RAI I'd agree that the wording of arcane bond means that only one familiar was intended

(necro'ed thread for FAQing)


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Anybody know if this ever actually got an answer from a dev? Because if so I can't find one and this is a pretty big issue and is relevant to a current character im making. Although the last post from this thread is from over a year ago and I don't see any faqs or dev responses. Personally im on the side of multiple familiars but im interested in an official response for sure.

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Sorcerer with two familiars? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.