Is there a downside to taking a bloodline familiar on a Sage Sorcerer?

[master_marshmallow]

I'm attempting to make a support like character, and I am thinking about making a sorcerer. I personally prefer the Sage archetype because I like INT based classes and I noticed in the guides the major downside to the Sage bloodline is the fact that you give up the familiar. Not only does the bloodline familiar give you the familiar back, but you also get +2 on the caster level of any spells that target the familiar.

[andreww]

As far as I can tell they are incompatible. Both replace the 1st level bloodline power.

[master_marshmallow]

Is it technically an archetype?

[David knott 242]

Wildblooded is an archetype, and you have to take that archetype to take a mutated bloodline like the Sage bloodline.

[master_marshmallow]

David knott 242 wrote:

Wildblooded is an archetype, and you have to take that archetype to take a mutated bloodline like the Sage bloodline.

But the bloodline familiars do not state that they come from an archetype, hence my asking.

[Mechanical Pear]

Right, that's what I'm seeing. To get a Bloodline Familiar, you don't have to have the "Bloodline Familiar Archetype". As far as I can see, it's compatible. And, if you like the Sage's Bloodline Arcana better, then it's better, as you said. A familiar, plus an additional +2 CL blah blah blah.

[Mechanical Pear]

I mean, I'm trying to think of a precedent. To get a Monk Vow, it says it replaces Still Mind. So if you have an archetype that gets rid of Still Mind, you can't take vows.

But, if it said, it replaces your first level bonus feat, and an archetype changes what feats you're allowed to pick, AND getting Monk vows wasn't based around an Archetype, then I'd say that was legal.

Same here.

[CN_Minus]

It's totally compatible, but it hurts spells gained a bit. At some point you have to wonder how much hurt you can take to spell progression before just becoming a wizard.

Summing it up, taking Sage/bloodline familiar is legal. Not only that, but being forced to learn your bloodline spells a level later isn't too terrible if you can get over the fact that you'll have to be very, very picky when it comes to spells learned.

[Heretek]

I think if we get REALLY RAW then it doesn't stack. To take a bloodline familiar it states under familiar archetypes:
(N/A; not technically an archetype, affects the familiar’s owner) 1st-level Bloodline power; Spells

"affects the familiar's owner" seems to imply it grants an archetype to the PC. However to find this requires a deal of digging, and the base RAW makes no indication of any of the above. Either way, it should be allowed, and I can't imagine any DM saying no.

[David knott 242]

master_marshmallow wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Wildblooded is an archetype, and you have to take that archetype to take a mutated bloodline like the Sage bloodline.

But the bloodline familiars do not state that they come from an archetype, hence my asking.

Ah, I see now.

So the Wildblooded archetype/Sage bloodline replaces your first level bloodline power, as does Bloodline Familiar. If they were both archetypes, they would not stack. However, since Bloodline Familiar is not actually an archetype and you still have a first level bloodline power after applying Wildblooded/Sage, I guess it could work as long as there is nothing forcing you to apply Bloddline Familiar before Wildblooded/Sage (since in that case the familiar would be replaced) or (just as important) preventing the Sage bloodline from counting as its parent bloodline for the purpose of your Bloodline Familiar.

[CN_Minus]

That would only matter if bloodline familiar was an archetype in and of itself. Since it isn't an archetype, only RAI stops someone from using this combination.