I'm looking at the feat polyglot familiar and how it interacts with improved familiar and familiar archetypes .
For example, lets say I have Polyglot Familiar, and at 7th level I take Improved Familiar. Can I then select an improved familiar with a familiar archetype such as protector? Can we use the feat to re-establish the ability to qualify for the archetype when we get the new familiar?
I'm trying to find a precedent in the forums or other examples of similar situations in the rules that would say otherwise, but I haven't been able to find another situation where one feat removes a class feature and another feat adds the same class feature.
An alchemist replacing mutagen with an archetype then using the mutagen discovery is a close example, but isn't exactly the same. With that, we still wouldn't be able to use another archetype, because we already have an archetype that modifies the class ability.
Improved Familiar is a feat, not an archetype, so the 'no two archetypes can modify the same ability' part of archetype rules don't apply.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the base class as another alternate class feature. For example, a fighter could not be both an armor master and a brawler, since both archetypes replace the weapon training 1 class feature with something different.
I see what you're saying. Getting Improved Familiar means the familiar does not have "speak with animals of its kind", which is needed to have the Protector archetype. Would Polyglot Familiar give it to the Improved Familiar, so it can be taken away by the "Shield Master" ability? As a DM, I would probably go with no, if I were rules-lawyering. But I can see a case for it. (and I'm usually not hard-core on some restrictions. I don't mind if a player plays a Crossblooded Sorcerer, with one of its bloodlines being Wildblooded. I'm pretty sure its official that you can't, but eh)
"The first time you take this feat, if your familiar can't already speak with creatures of its kind, you must choose that category of creature."
Meaning that then it GETS the ability to speak with animals of its kind.
It seems, though, that the Protector archetype isn't really meant for a familiar that does more than just sit on the character's shoulder, but I dunno. I quit thinking about it about half-way through.
Thought it through more. Improved Familiars still usually have zero reach, meaning they have to be in the opponents square to do combat, while the Protector archetype likes it when the familiar is in the same square as the character. Improved Familiars aren't animal companions, though, and as far as I've seen, aren't heavily relied on in combat. They are good for their other abilities. If a player of mine wanted to have an Improved Familiar with the Protector archetype, I personally wouldn't have a problem with them picking up that feat to make it work. They'd lose the feat's ability, though, unless they picked it up again (the second time would be only for that familiar's type, though, as though it were the first time getting the feat, I'd say).
Yes, the feat grants the ability to speak with its kind, just as the normal familiar ability does.
If this works the way I'm currently reading/understanding it, the feat would no longer grant the benefit if we used it to qualify for an archetype. It would be a kind of dead feat, granting no benefits other than allowing us to meet the requirements for the familiar archetype.
The wildblooded/crossblooded scenario is like the alchemist mutagen scenario- both involve using two archetypes altering the same ability. This is explicitly not allowed in the rules for archetypes. For the familiar, we are using only a single archetype.
As far as protector and actual combat, I was just using it as an example. We could use any of the other archetypes that replace/modify the speak with animals of its kind ability.
I guess using the current interpretation we could take it twice, but that might be jumping a bit too far ahead. I'd really like to know if just using polyglot familiar will allow us access to archetypes first.
Thanks for the link Byakko, I hadn't even thought of the stat limitation for mauler.
So from what I understand from that thread, we cannot take Improved Familiar with any archetype that modifies speak with animals of its kind because we no longer have the class ability.
Polyglot Familiar grants the ability to speak with animals of its kind, but it is not gained as a class ability, it is a feat. Though it adds the same ability, it does not count for archetypes due to its source as a feat.
There is language in the rules to support this, as class features are specifically called out in the archetype section, and all of the class listings include 'class feature' sections.
Not the answer I was looking for unfortunately, so now I'm back to square one on getting an improved familiar with a nonstandard body to gain hands for using wands, but I appreciate the help.
Not the answer I was looking for unfortunately, so now I'm back to square one on getting an improved familiar with a nonstandard body to gain hands for using wands, but I appreciate the help.
But that's so easy. There's several improved familiars that can speak and have hands to use wands with. Some even have great charisma and/or have use magic device as a class skill (check the monster type entry).
I'm trying to get hands on a specific improved familiar that doesn't already have them with pathfinder society rules. Best option I've found that will work for any familiar and let me keep the bonuses of improved familiar is polymorph familiar, and the duration is on the short side.
From an old post:
You can get a monkey familiar. They have hands. At 5th level, your familiar can "speak with master". Thus, they satisfy the requirements to use a wand. Getting the UMB high enough, with an animal's usual charisma, is a different problem.
In addition to monkeys, these also have hands: Donkey Rat, Koala, Racoon, Rat, or [Flying] Squirrel.
An argument for birds can be made. They use their feet to manipulate. I have seen Parrots pick up food in one foot while standing on the other, then eat it by bringing up the foot to their mouth. Likewise, could not a bird perch on a wand? Better yet, fly while grasping it. A familiar is smart enough to point the thing by their flight path.
/cevah