So the rules say "Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar."
But once a raven or hedgehog or little scampering dinosaur or whatever becomes your familiar, is there any rule stopping it from taking class levels while continuing to function as a familiar?
I mean, as a familiar, it's got human-like intelligence, so it's not like it's "too dumb too learn". Sure, its other scores may limit its function as a member of that class, but a fox rogue can sneak attack and improve its Sleight of Hand Bite.
You just have to wait for your DM to award enough EXP to your familiar for him to take his first level.
You might have to wait a while.
Hmm, funny, my 1st-level PCs tend to start w/ an XP total of "0".
So it seems "enough" is "none at all".
So the rules say "Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar."
But once a raven or hedgehog or little scampering dinosaur or whatever becomes your familiar, is there any rule stopping it from taking class levels while continuing to function as a familiar?
I mean, as a familiar, it's got human-like intelligence, so it's not like it's "too dumb too learn". Sure, its other scores may limit its function as a member of that class, but a fox rogue can sneak attack and improve its Sleight of
HandBite.
Can any of your other CLASS FEATURES take character class levels? No? Then I bet a familiar cannot either...
Can any of your other CLASS FEATURES take character class levels? No? Then I bet a familiar cannot either...
Ah, but a familiar is no mere sneak attack or lay on hands - it is a sentient being with a mind and body separate from that of the PC.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Familiars aren't meant to take class levels, no. This is why they advance based on your level according to the table in the book. If you want your fox to be better at Sleight of Whatever, you should invest your own skill points into that skill, and maybe look at picking up the pilferer familiar archetype.
Familiars aren't meant to take class levels, no.
There's a lot of cheesiness that PCs "aren't meant to" pull... but if there ain't no rule against it...
Familiars aren't meant to take class levels, no.
There's a lot of cheesiness that PCs "aren't meant to" pull... but if there ain't no rule against it...
The thing is that there are an infinite number of things that there ain't no rule against, but that doesn't really matter as the game isn't designed that way. Quite the opposite in fact. You can't do anything unless the rules say you can.
The basis of this game is that the rules tell you were you're allowed to do. They don't tell you what you're not allowed to do.
Voin-AFOL, I think you know the answer is no, but you're looking for some way to justify it anyways. Right now you're trying to jusitfy it by saying there is no rule against it. I think you know that is a pretty weak line of reasoning.
I'm not going to say more on the subject, because if I do I'm going to stray into insulting territory.
Do you allow the weapon training class feature to take class levels? And if so how do you divine xp among the different class features?
The short answer to your question is: No.
Hmm, funny, my 1st-level PCs tend to start w/ an XP total of "0".
So it seems "enough" is "none at all".
But like all 0-level creatures, your familiar has -1 XP.
P.S. I just pulled this out of...
There is a little bit of precedent for this in Wrath of the Righteous:
The AP makes it very clear that this is highly unusual, however.
It's clearly something that would require GM permission, and the answer should almost always be a no.
Improved familiars are a bit odd as some of them could have had class levels before they became your familiar.
Okay, first of all, this post was intended to be very tongue-in-cheek. I know tone of voice and other non-verbal cues are difficult to convey over the net, but there, now I said it, you can all calm down please.
Quite the opposite in fact. You can't do anything unless the rules say you can.
What I'm about to say ins't me being mean or rude - just speaking plainly and honestly: that's where you're wrong, and have missed the entire point of the game. You can do anything within the context of the scene and your character's abilities. And frankly, in light of your statement, you don't sound like someone I'd want GMing my game.
Lemme ask you this: have all the PCs been just holding everything they've ever eaten and drank because there are no explicit rules for relieving oneself? Didn't think so.
Table-Top RPGs have always been about imagination and creativity, and no system of rules is ever going to be able to encapsulate everything that spawns from the fertile minds of players and GMs. That's part the whole draw of the hobby that has always trumped video games - sure, a video game's combat may go faster, but even in the most sophisticated and mod-laden ones, you can only do what's programmed in. In a TTRPG - assuming a GM who's not a stick-in-the-mud - the game can adapt on the fly to creative player ideas.
In fact, some of the best, most memorable moments in my years of playing and GMing have been when players have have gone "out of the box" and done something neat that wasn't in the rules. I recall one adventure I GMed where on their way to slay an ogre, the players came up with a trap (as best as I recall, something like a trip-rope at the exit of the cave at the top of the hill, and wooden stakes positioned in the hillside) that wasn't anywhere in the massive list of traps in the rulebooks. Naturally, I was cool with it and worked with them to figure out how to adjudicate the mechanics of such a trap (trip effect, treat stakes as spikes, treat distance slid down hill as 1/2 pit-depth, or something like that).
Another problem I've had with the "You can't do anything unless the rules say you can." is from a rules-design perspective. D&D really ground itself into the muck with the whole arbitrary "you can's so much as attempt to do X unless you have some feat, class/racial feature, skill, etc that let's you do that" trend. Not "lets you do it better", mind you, but lets you do try to do it at all.
Want to have a bite of that corndog? Too bad! You can't do it unless you have Improved Advanced Om-Nommage (Corndog), and the whole pyramid-scheme of feats and other prereqs that builds up to it!
If everything is so cut-and-dry, by-the-book, as you assume it its, why do we even need GMs to adjudicate things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People on here will give you the Rules
The Rules do not say that you can have your familiar take class levels as they advance as you do in your own class.
Now if you want your familiar to take class levels, that is between you and your GM since he is the final arbiter as to what will be allowed. At this time however, there is no basis for it
Yes you can find rule-breaking things in adventure paths, I just finished (literally last night) running Rise of the Runelords and even in the anniversary edition was able to find rule issues. NPCs/enemies (especially humanoids) are not always written by someone with explicit knowledge of the rules, they write them up as they want them to be and what best fits the story. This is also what a GM does.
So again, its up to your GM as he/she will have to figure out/decide how to keep track of your familiar and change the game based around that. Does the familiar get an equal share of the XP? Does the familiar get equal share in gold? Does your familiar get to decide RP wise that he hates your PC and now leaves of his own accord? Do you continue to gain all the associated benefits from this familiar even though now he is more of a full NPC?
These things are not in the rules so the answer is no, but your GM can easily say yes :)
Quite the opposite in fact. You can't do anything unless the rules say you can.What I'm about to say ins't me being mean or rude - just speaking plainly and honestly: that's where you're wrong, and have missed the entire point of the game. You can do anything within the context of the scene and your character's abilities. And frankly, in light of your statement, you don't sound like someone I'd want GMing my game.
I disagree with your first statement, but sure, feel free to think that. I'm going to disregard the rest of what you wrote besides the quoted as it isn't really relevant to the topic, and really, I don't care about it.
You are in the rules forum, a place for rules, not houserules, not DM fiat, but what the rules say, or in this, what they don't say. The rules do not say that you can do what you are trying to do, at least without the DM specifically making an allowance for you to do it, so without your DM telling you to do it, you cannot do it. It is really that simple, and really, I think you know that. You are arguing that because characters can take "out of the box" actions that aren't covered well or at all by the rules, you can do whatever the hell you want without DM consent in the heavily structured and rules heavy character building process. Were you expecting everyone to be come in and say "Yeah bro, just add whatever you want to the Familiar. Make it a level 20 Mythic Wizard right now if you want"?
As a DM I'm extremely lenient with players. Justify it and I'm probably cool with it. Want to be a secretly be Intellect Devourer who masquerades as a master of disguise? Yeah, we can come to a compromise. An alchemist that is permanently trapped in Skin Send? Creepy, but workable. Just remember one important thing: As you aren't the DM you don't get to make houserules up as you see fit. You don't get to decide that if the rules don't suit you so you are going to change them. You don't get to make your own rules material and then plop it down and say it is being used and there ain't nothing the DM can do about it.
Believe me, I don't think I'd want you in my game either. Having to babysit to your sheet to make sure you didn't arbitrarily decide to raise your stats to straight 100s, or add a +50 "because I felt like it" bonus to attack, or started throwing templates on yourself because "there ain't no rule that says I can't" doesn't seem like it would make for a fun gaming experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yo dawg I heard you like Familiars! so I gave yo' familiar a level of wizard so it has a familiar so yo' familiar has a familiar! Its like familiar inception up in this namean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yo dawg I heard you like Familiars! so I gave yo' familiar a level of wizard so it has a familiar so yo' familiar has a familiar! Its like familiar inception up in this namean?
You joke, but that's actually possible for an Eidolon or a companion creature with intelligence over 2.
Edit: Also a beast bonded witch's familiar can have its own familiar.
Yo dawg I heard you like Familiars! so I gave yo' familiar a level of wizard so it has a familiar so yo' familiar has a familiar! Its like familiar inception up in this namean?You joke, but that's actually possible for an Eidolon or a companion creature with intelligence over 2.
Good old Familiar Bond.
Ignoring the abundance of personality in this thread... I'd say this might be a neat usage for the Leadership feat.
What if you take leadership and make your cohort your familiar?
There looks to be a lot of odd material for things you can do with Leadership, but not sure if that is an option by default. Seems like a decent enough idea though, and I'd imagine most DMs would go with it.
...
First of all, chill out - you needn't have taken it so personally, this was only ever meant as a fun, friendly discussion regarding what looked like a goofy loophole in the rules, not a launchpad for personal attacks at one another. I have no interest in starting a flame war or getting dragged into one, so this will be my last post on this thread. Thank you, moving on.
Secondly, because the rules for Ability Score generation are clearly started, while the rules for how much agency familiar have are more... mutable. Last I checked the pfsrd they had a whole section discussing who controls a familiar or other companion (Player, GM, or mix), because depending on campaign needs, it may vary from game to game.
so without your DM telling you to do it, you cannot do it
^ This. This is exactly what caused one of the more recent groups I was in to fall apart because the inexperienced GM took the same "must micromanage-everything and everybody" approach as what you're prescribing.
No thank you!
As a player, I run my one character. A GM runs all the NPCs. If all my agency is taken away and relegated to "do the thing the GM tells you, when he tells you", what's the point of me even being there? I may as well go read a book or watch a movie or engage in some other non-interactive means of entertainment if the GM is just gonna run my character like another NPC.
(^ Yes, the above paragraph was part of what I had to explain numerous times to that noob GM. No, he didn't get it until it was too late and people had quit the group in anger.)
Heck, at that point, the GM can just run everybody's characters by themselves, and we'll go make our own group. With Blackjack! And hookers!
;P
...First of all, chill out - you needn't have taken it so personally, this was only ever meant as a fun, friendly discussion regarding what looked like a goofy loophole in the rules, not a launchpad for personal attacks at one another. I have no interest in starting a flame war or getting dragged into one, so this will be my last post on this thread. Thank you, moving on.
Secondly, because the rules for Ability Score generation are clearly started, while the rules for how much agency familiar have are more... mutable. Last I checked the pfsrd they had a whole section discussing who controls a familiar or other companion (Player, GM, or mix), because depending on campaign needs, it may vary from game to game.
so without your DM telling you to do it, you cannot do it^ This. This is exactly what caused one of the more recent groups I was in to fall apart because the inexperienced GM took the same "must micromanage-everything and everybody" approach as what you're prescribing.
No thank you!
As a player, I run my one character. A GM runs all the NPCs. If all my agency is taken away and relegated to "do the thing the GM tells you, when he tells you", what's the point of me even being there? I may as well go read a book or watch a movie or engage in some other non-interactive means of entertainment if the GM is just gonna run my character like another NPC.
(^ Yes, the above paragraph was part of what I had to explain numerous times to that noob GM. No, he didn't get it until it was too late and people had quit the group in anger.)
Heck, at that point, the GM can just run everybody's characters by themselves, and we'll go make our own group. With Blackjack! And hookers!
;P
I think a better way to put it would be:
"Oh, here's an interesting thing... I wish I could do this, but I don't see anything in the rulebook that tells me I can do it, nor do I see anything telling me it's forbidden. What to do, what to do... Oh, let's do it anyway!"
That is wrong. You're doing something that someone else at your table might see as questionable, and then it just devolves into "if he can do that, why can't I do this?" and just situation upon situation of the rules devolving into chaos, and at that point why are you even playing a cohesive system of rules?
Instead:
- "Oh, the rules don't tell me one way or another, but I still want to do it... Let's ask the DM what he thinks!"
- "Hey DM guy, I have this familiar, and he's very intelligent! Do you think he could take levels in a class to reflect my character's developement?"
- (Possible DM reply 1)"That sounds really interesting! How about you try it out and we see how it goes?"
- (Reply 2)"No, I don't think I want to allow that in my game. A familiar is already good enough for utility, and adding class levels to him would essentially make your character twice as powerful as anyone else."
- (You again, regardless:)"Okay, DM, it's your campaign and I respect your decision for how you want to run it."
This game is a template of rules meant to bring people together to create a story that is fun for everyone, from the newest player to the most experienced DM. The rules are meant as a set of guidelines to keep the players inside the same game so that disputes can be absolved through either a roll of the dice or a wave of the DM's hand. Any additional problems that come, whether it's because of an inconsistency of the rules or an argument between players, needs to be solved by talking it out within your group. In the end, we as a community can tell you how we feel about the issue and if we personally would allow it in our games, but the final decision lies with you guys to talk it out with your group. And the final decision of how to run the campaign, which your group is a part of, lies with the DM.
As a player, I run my one character. A GM runs all the NPCs. If all my agency is taken away and relegated to "do the thing the GM tells you, when he tells you", what's the point of me even being there?
No. Just no.
The many jobs of a DM include adjudicating the rules of the game. As has been said to you multiple times, the rules define the actions your character can take. Beyond those rules, you must petition your DM for anything else. Any sane DM will simply hand-wave common-sense actions such as (as you reference) defecation. We don't need rules for that granular and non-balance-impacting type of action.
On the other hand, when you simply decide you're using a book full of rules that your DM hasn't approved, you are potentially disrupting the game and should be seeking input. The DM keeps things from being broken, and gets to review content before it's included.
Frankly your position - and I don't for a minute think you actually believe it - is that your elf character can fly at will and walk through walls, because you decide she should. If you can't make such decisions, then why play the game? That's literally what you're saying. Well. Sorry, but as you've been told repeatedly, if you can't find a rule that allows an action, your recourse is to ask the DM. And you know it. And you know why. And the whole "just a friendly discussion" thing doesn't get more likely just because you say it repeatedly.
Roleplaying games are a compact, an agreement between the DM who simulates a reality and presents a storyline, and the players, who interact with that simulation within the constraints of the rules. Insinuating and outright stating that any DM who retains control over rules interpretation and inclusion is a "newb" or micromanaging is very, very insulting.
To extend a DM's duty to make rules decisions into running your character is a strawman argument and it comes off as just that... argument.
As a reminder ... even if the rules say you can have a thing, if the GM says no, then the answer is no. They have their reasons for things, from 'game balance' to 'I don't have the book it's from' (killing my wish for an earthbreaker) to 'Totally uncool choice'.
We're more than happy to give an opinion on how a rule might go given what's been published and said (and honestly, I'd say 'no' to familiars having class levels because that's replicating a feat you can't take until level 7!). Despite the limitations of being a cute little kitty, it's still another character with a full set of actions. And I'd rather not deal with a clumsy calico familiar named Tanglefoot suddenly casting Fireballs and Flaming Spheres. (Seriously, keep her away from those spells. She's not right in the head.)