The Ioun Wyrd in the Familiar Folio is an interesting little creature, and looks like it would be a cool interim familiar for a crafting-focused wizard until he can get a clockwork familiar instead.
But given the Construction section of the writeup, I'm wondering if a first level wizard would even be allowed to have one; it's supposed to require 500 gp of alchemical materials and a functioning Ioun Stone to create. (Or 1,000 gp of materials and an Ioun Stone according to the construct stat block.)
Anyone have any insight on when exactly a character would be able to get one of these?
No, a first level character probably could not create an Ioun Wyrd given the construction requirements
However, their bestiary entry does mention that they are sometimes found in the wild near highly magical locations, so one might be obtained that way. Likewise one could be a gift from a master to an apprentice.
So while there are ways one might be obtained at first level they are mostly up to GM discretion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheapest Ioun Stones [Price, Stone, Power]:
1,000 gp Agate Ellipsoid Single use of the augury spell with 100% success rate
1,000 gp Tourmaline Sphere Treat your Constitution score as 2 higher for negative hit points needed to cause death
300 gp Dark Blue Rhomboid (flawed) +2 competence bonus on Perception checks and a –1 penalty to initiative checks
150 gp Amethyst Pyramid (cracked) +2 competence bonus on Knowledge (religion) checks to identify undead and their special abilities
150 gp Gold Nodule (cracked) +1 competence bonus on Linguistics checks
25 gp Dull Gray Stone (any shape) None
An ioun wyrd is made of small gemstones, lodestones, and bits of granite which are coated with 500 gp worth of alchemical materials. A single functional ioun stone must also be present, which the ioun wyrd takes as the first ioun stone to be integrated into its body with its ioun affinity.
CL 5th; Price 1,500 gp plus ioun stone
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Feats Craft Construct; Spells animate objects, lesser geas; Skills Knowledge (arcana) DC 15; Cost 1,000 gp plus ioun stone
There is a trait Rich Parents (Social) gets 900 gp to start, and Chosen Child (Regional) adds +900 gp to start. There are some other traits you can add w/Additional Traits, but you don't need them.
So: two traits to get starting money of 1800. Price for the Ioun Word is 1500 + Ioun Stone. That leaves you with 300 for the stone. Get a cracked one above and have 150 gp left over.
Of course, needs GM OK, but RAW legal. :-)
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ioun Wyrd available at character creation: Yep. they can be found in any Environment. Nothing states that a caster creates one when making a familiar so you could be lucky enough to find a wild one.
Animals cost a few coppers too - has your GM ever made a PC pay for their regular starting Familiar?
Resurrecting this thread, as I was just looking into the same thing.
Any way to get an Ioun wyrd as a familiar at first level ?
Granted construction costs are higher than the cast of of the animals usually chosen as a familiar...but given the things other class abilities grant classes without charge...
Is their a reason (like requiring improved familiar) a wizard couldn't simply state that's their familiar at first level ?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Resurrecting this thread, as I was just looking into the same thing.
Any way to get an Ioun wyrd as a familiar at first level ?Granted construction costs are higher than the cast of of the animals usually chosen as a familiar...but given the things other class abilities grant classes without charge...
Is their a reason (like requiring improved familiar) a wizard couldn't simply state that's their familiar at first level ?
Nothing is stated anywhere that you do NOT gain the familiar when you select it. Just because the familiar does have a construction cost, doesn't mean it must be paid from starting gold. How much does a wizard pay for that arcane bond masterwork dagger he has?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to create an Ioun wyrd to have it as a familiar any more than you have to create a cat to have it as a familiar.
Just expect confusion when it comes time to heal it.
Just expect confusion when it comes time to heal it.
Infernal healing is really a must with this familiar if you expect it to be damaged before you can take make whole. You just have to "expect confusion" when it comes to the spell being an 'evil' spell. At worst you might have to take a 'good' spell like summon monster to balance out your alignment if your DM actually has those spells shift alignments. ;)
As a bonus, if the CHARACTER is a construct [Android/Wyrwood], the same spells that heal you will heal your familiar.
The confusion comes from what 'type' the creature is. An Ioun Wyrd is obviously a construct - but an Ioun Wyrd familiar might be "a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type" per the familiar rules. That's the confusion that comes up. If it's a magical beast, cure light wounds works. If it isn't, it doesn't. There is no text anywhere that said the ioun wyrd ignores that rule, but many would rule that it does.
The confusion comes from what 'type' the creature is. An Ioun Wyrd is obviously a construct - but an Ioun Wyrd familiar might be "a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type" per the familiar rules. That's the confusion that comes up. If it's a magical beast, cure light wounds works. If it isn't, it doesn't. There is no text anywhere that said the ioun wyrd ignores that rule, but many would rule that it does.
"While most familiars are Tiny animals or magical beasts, spellcasters may acquire larger or more unusual creatures during their travels, which impart certain rules effects that should be considered at the table."
"Construct, plant, and vermin familiars gain an Intelligence score, and they lose the mindless trait if they had it. If such familiars lack a language, they communicate with their masters and other creatures of their kind (greensting scorpions with other scorpions, mobile plant creatures with other mobile plant creatures, and so on) by way of a strange combination of behaviors, slight changes in coloration, and sometimes even the excretion of scents or pheromones. Other types of creatures can’t understand this communication without magical aid."
Note "It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type" is where it talks about "normal animal" and "magical beast", not the "Unusual Familiars" section. A construct isn't a "normal animal" so I can't see how that lint is still in affect.
|
Infernal healing is really a must with this familiar if you expect it to be damaged before you can take make whole. You just have to "expect confusion" when it comes to the spell being an 'evil' spell. At worst you might have to take a 'good' spell like summon monster to balance out your alignment if your DM actually has those spells shift alignments. ;)
I think it's more than a fair concern to bring up the fact that by RAW casting Infernal Healing is an evil act. As for the good spell counter, nothing says that evil spells and good spells have the same level of affect on alignment, just that they are an aligned act.
Basically, it's a valid point to bring up because it is an aligned act by RAW and the "good spell counter" may or may not work as its GM fiat if its actually equal to casting an evil spell.
well, there IS a celestial healing spell now as well.
And really, I'm not entirely sure the rules state anywhere that cure light wounds won't work on a construct. The construct rules do not prohibit magical healing, and cure light wounds targets 'creature touched'. The only contention I've seen is in the spell description it says you touch a living creature - though "living creature" is not a defined game term, and could just as easily mean the dictionary definition of 'not dead' - because cure spells have no effect on already dead creatures.
Which they seemed to make deliberately terrible. It has not effect until level two as well.
I think it's more than a fair concern to bring up the fact that by RAW casting Infernal Healing is an evil act. As for the good spell counter, nothing says that evil spells and good spells have the same level of affect on alignment, just that they are an aligned act.
Basically, it's a valid point to bring up because it is an aligned act by RAW and the "good spell counter" may or may not work as its GM fiat if its actually equal to casting an evil spell.
There is nothing to suggest evil spells are measured any different than good, chaotic or lawful ones and I'd expect something said if that was the case. Since they aren't, I go in expecting them to be counted the same. It's JUST like you can expect a protection from evil to have the same effect as a protection from good, of an aura of good being as powerful as an aura of evil, or any other comparison of alignment effects. Why would anyone assume evil spells are a special snowflake that gets treated differently than the other 3 alignments?
Even if someone sets up some houserules to count them differently, it's STILL not hard to cancel out the bad. First, I refuse to agree that infernal healing is very bad. At best it's mildly naughty. Secondly, lets say it's 2 to 1, so you summon 2 celestial eagles. Or a celestial wolf.
Lastly, it's as likely, from my experience, that you'll see it houseruled that it's being evil is dumb and the evil part is removed. So, it's always good to make sure you know the houserules.
well, there IS a celestial healing spell now as well.
That is one of the crappiest, lame and just plain dumb spells EVER created. They managed to make a spell that LITERALLY does nothing at 1st level...
And really, I'm not entirely sure the rules state anywhere that cure light wounds won't work on a construct. The construct rules do not prohibit magical healing, and cure light wounds targets 'creature touched'. The only contention I've seen is in the spell description it says you touch a living creature - though "living creature" is not a defined game term, and could just as easily mean the dictionary definition of 'not dead' - because cure spells have no effect on already dead creatures.
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
The problem is not being a living creature.
It is a valid target, but gains no benefit from the spell.Same applies to the other Cure X Wounds spells.
/cevah
...
Even if someone sets up some houserules to count them differently, it's STILL not hard to cancel out the bad. First, I refuse to agree that infernal healing is very bad. At best it's mildly naughty.
...
That settles it, my next character is going to have Chaotic Mildly Naughty as their alignment. This is A-Thing-That-Must-Happen.
And really, I'm not entirely sure the rules state anywhere that cure light wounds won't work on a construct. The construct rules do not prohibit magical healing, and cure light wounds targets 'creature touched'. The only contention I've seen is in the spell description it says you touch a living creature - though "living creature" is not a defined game term, and could just as easily mean the dictionary definition of 'not dead' - because cure spells have no effect on already dead creatures.When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).The problem is not being a living creature.
It is a valid target, but gains no benefit from the spell.Same applies to the other Cure X Wounds spells.
/cevah
Where is the game definition of 'living creature'? How does that not just mean not dead?
This FAQ right here. If it's not undead or a construct, it's alive. Also...
Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this like a dhampir’s negative energy affinity.
Negative energy works just as described above for positive energy, reversing living creatures and undead in all cases (it often heals undead, it often harms living creatures, if it mentions damage without specifying what it damages, it always means only living creatures, and so on).
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
so if you have a cure spell with a target of "you" it can heal your robot familiar
Targeting was not a problem.
Benefiting is.
As it is not a living creature, it does not gain healing.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That settles it, my next character is going to have Chaotic Mildly Naughty as their alignment. This is A-Thing-That-Must-Happen....
Even if someone sets up some houserules to count them differently, it's STILL not hard to cancel out the bad. First, I refuse to agree that infernal healing is very bad. At best it's mildly naughty.
...
All of my characters range from Occasionally to Awfully Naughty. Mildly is in the middle. ;)