| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi,
if you take Eldritch Heritage(Arcana) and Improved Familiar with a class with arcane caster lvls, what is the minimum lvl für the lvl 7 familiars? EH says your sorcerer lvl is character lvl -2, but Improved Familiar just talks about your arcane caster lvl.
So is it possible to take for example an imp as a summoner at lvl 7?
Presumably, yes.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Improved Familliar again was not written with the new rules in mind.
You'd have to account for the arcane caster level that gives you the familiar. For you it's the Arcane Heritage feat, not your Summoner levels In this case you're effectively level 5, so no Imp unless you wait another two levels.
While I agree with you that it should be interpreted this way, technically RAW says he could use his Summoner level instead.
I'm not 100% sure that's the intent though. Whether or not it was written with the new rules in mind is irrelevant because you could already do this before eldritch heritage was made. Just using the CRB, you could have a bard that took 1 level of Wizard to get the familiar, and then got an arcane caster level of 7 in bard.
All that said, I suppose it not being allowed is the intention. Just shoddy prerequisite writing.
Hi,
if you take Eldritch Heritage(Arcana) and Improved Familiar with a class with arcane caster lvls, what is the minimum lvl für the lvl 7 familiars? EH says your sorcerer lvl is character lvl -2, but Improved Familiar just talks about your arcane caster lvl.
So is it possible to take for example an imp as a summoner at lvl 7?Always look to draw analogies when a specific rule is confusing you.
Would a Bard7/Wizard1 be able to take improved familiar to take an imp? Yes, it doesn't matter that his wizard casting level is 1 because he has an arcane casting level that's 7 even though it's not the class that gave him access to a familiar!
So while the character level -2 for the sorcerer level can be used (say if he was a pure fighter or multiclass) as a pure summoner you have another arcane caster level that's 7 and thus it works for you.
That said, can I interest you in trading out something that your character likely doesn't use/need for a better imp? Check out the diabolist PrC ;)
-James
Hmm, frankly I disagree with your first assertion, the Bard/Wizard would not be allowed to take an Imp familiar.
Clearly for some folks rules must be written so that mere table headings say thing like (Arcane Caster Level for Class that allows you to take this familiar) because otherwise the intent will be subverted to the literal wording, though likely only when it suits you.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
While I agree with you that it should be interpreted this way, technically RAW says he could use his Summoner level instead.Improved Familliar again was not written with the new rules in mind.
You'd have to account for the arcane caster level that gives you the familiar. For you it's the Arcane Heritage feat, not your Summoner levels In this case you're effectively level 5, so no Imp unless you wait another two levels.
No, the RAW does not say that. RAW does not say that Summoners get familliars AT ALL.
That's the thing about RAW, it usually doesn't say very much. It's the Interpretation that complicates things.
The requirements say this:
"Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below)."Under the "see below" section, there is a table. The table has three columns, the creature type, the creature's alignment, and "Arcane Spellcaster Level".
As this prerequisite is written, it refers to the table, and the table simply says Arcane Spellcaster Level. As it is written, there is no reason that you could not use Sorcerer, Witch, Magus, or Summoner levels for this prerequisite. That's what I meant by RAW. Rules As Written.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
So does a summoner 7 with eldritch heritage meet the requirements for an imp with improved familiar?
Ability to acquire a familiar? Check.
Compatible alignment? Check
Arcane Caster level? Check.So yes, by RAW, a summoner level 7 meets the requirements for an imp familiar.
Yep, if a summoner chooses the Arcane bloodline with eldritch heritage, he should definitely be able to do improved familiar at level 7.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
So does a summoner 7 with eldritch heritage meet the requirements for an imp with improved familiar?
Ability to acquire a familiar? Check.
Compatible alignment? Check
Arcane Caster level? Check.So yes, by RAW, a summoner level 7 meets the requirements for an imp familiar.
Qualifying Arcane Caster Level 7? Fail. The qualifying caster level is effectively 5. Because all the summoner levels in the world do not qualify you for the familliar you're using the Feat to do so. And the Feat CLEARLY states that the effective sorcerer level for the arcane power is Summoner Level MINUS Two. In this case the Summoner can have his Imp when he reaches level 9. and then qualifies as a Sorcerer 7.
RAW can be used to prove anything... especially if you leave out the inconvenient parts of it.
You're adding language to RAW. What is "qualifying arcane caster level"? That's not how it's written. If a bard 7/wiz 1 can take improved familiar by RAW, then so should the summoner 7 with arcane eldritch heritage. That's how it's written. Your interpretation is the part that is confusing the issue.
So does a summoner 7 with eldritch heritage meet the requirements for an imp with improved familiar?
Ability to acquire a familiar? Check.
Compatible alignment? Check
Arcane Caster level? Check.So yes, by RAW, a summoner level 7 meets the requirements for an imp familiar.
Qualifying Arcane Caster Level 7? Fail. The qualifying caster level is effectively 5. Because all the summoner levels in the world do not qualify you for the familliar you're using the Feat to do so. And the Feat CLEARLY states that the effective sorcerer level for the arcane power is Summoner Level MINUS Two. In this case the Summoner can have his Imp when he reaches level 9. and then qualifies as a Sorcerer 7.
RAW can be used to prove anything... especially if you leave out the inconvenient parts of it.
Would a summoner be able to take it at level 5 if he were wearing a robe of arcane heritage?
No, RAW, he meets all the requirements at level 7.
Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?
Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?Is there an FAQ? Because if not, there is no official interpretation.
This would be interesting to see.
For now i would go with side that says he can usa any arcane caster class levels he got , so a 7 level anything with a familiar would be able to take the imp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?Is there an FAQ? Because if not, there is no official interpretation.
The developer makes it official for pfs only.
|
The developer makes it official for pfs only.Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?Is there an FAQ? Because if not, there is no official interpretation.
Was under the impression that only books (supplements), errata, and FAQ's were official for pfs. Can you point me to the source that says developer posts are good too, because that would change alot.
Was under the impression that only books (supplements), errata, and FAQ's were official for pfs. Can you point me to the source that says developer posts are good too, because that would change alot.The developer makes it official for pfs only.Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?Is there an FAQ? Because if not, there is no official interpretation.
I think it was a post made by Mike brock.
Guys, someone quoted a senior developer two posts before me.
