Is there any legal way to combine these two?
Specifically I would like to get a Pseudodragon Familiar that has the Figment Archetype.
I had seen the Witch's Animal Patron with Patron Familiar be suggested as a way to gain Speak with Animals of it's Kind as an ability to the Familiar so that the Improved Familiar then has it to give up. But the Figment specifically discludes Witches being allowed to use them so I do not see that as working.
Wait, I just found [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/familiar-feats/polyglot-familiar-familiar]this
. That should work, right? Take the feat, it gives the Familiar the ability to speak with creatures of it's kind so that it can be given up so it can have the Figment Archetype.
...it seems legit and airtight. Hm.
For a home game, it very likely could work. Run it by your GM and see what they say! Personally, I think I would allow that combo to work as your giving up a very precious resource for familiars (feats, because they are very limited). If you are asking this question for PFS, then the answer is no. In PFS Improved Familiars are unable to use any Familiar archetypes, which is sad, but that be the rules.
Faelyn: I am not doubting you but rather curious where that rule for PFS is printed?
Jeff: It says "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."
To me that sounds just like what it says, "speak with creatures of it's kind".
|
My argument against it, PFS wise, is that you are not gaining the 'feature' speak with own kind, but a 'feat' speak with own kind, and you are not able to give up the feat for the archetype.
I believe that it's also been stated that it was design intention that archetypes would not be used with Improved Familiars, which would make me lean further toward not allowing it.
Where was that stated? I have heard that claim before but have seen no supporting evidence.
Also, this really seems like it is rubbing up against the things that are different should be different thing. If you were going to make a feet that gave that actual ability to the familiar how would you word it?
How is giving it the ability to "speak with creatures of it's kind" different than giving the ability to speak with creatures of it's kind?
Counterpoint.
Because it is a being of its master's own mind, a figment can never serve as a witch's familiar, and it can't use any divination spells or spell-like abilities it may possess.
The only familiars with Divination Spell-Like Abilities are the Improved Familiars.
Possibly, but I think they were referring to Commune and such, The Divinations. Not the Divinations such as See Invisibility.
*shrug*
"Special: The first time you take this feat, if your familiar can't already speak with creatures of its kind it gains that ability instead of the usual benefit from this feat."
Oh. You mean like where it says:
Special: ...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. ...
So really your quibble is about the difference between it saying "it gains that ability" and saying the same thing with different wording? I honestly do not see the vast difference between what you are saying and the wording the feat uses. To me it does the exact same thing with different words. To me it seems like you are saying that these things that were clearly meant to be the same thing are different. It rubs up against the SKR post, man.
And even then its ability to work would be murky, because a familiar archetype is applied to the base familiar, just like a class archetype is applied to the base class. You can't use an item or feat to make an otherwise illegal archetype swap legal (see the ring of evasion example I gave above) so why should you be able to do that with a familiar archetype?
Now your point makes even less sense. Lets do it your way:
1. Start with standard Familiar.
2. Apply archetype to base Familiar.
a. Check to make sure base Familiar meets prerequisites:
b. Check to make sure it has Improved Evasion to give up? Yes. Move on.
c. Check to make sure it has Deliver Touch Spells to give up? Yes. Move on.
d. Check to make sure it has Speak with Animals of its Kind to give up? Yes. Move on.
e. Check to make sure it has Scry on Familiar to give up? Yes. Move on.
3. Apply Archetype.
4. Obtain Improved Familiar feat.
a. Check to make sure you meet prerequisites of Improved Familiar:
b. Ability to acquire a new familiar? Yes. Move on.
c. Compatible Alignment? Yes. Move on.
d. Sufficiently high level? Yes. Move on.
5. Obtain new Familiar.
So that is doing it in the order you said, right? So, what... the Improved Familiar inherits the Archetype from it's Base Familiar counterpart? Or do you think that the Improved Familiar is more like a Prestige Class that you have to meet the prereqs for?
Well, if that is the case then the Familiar still meets all the prereqs for gaining the Improved Familiar "Prestige Class". There is nothing in the prereqs that say that it has to have Speak with Animals of its Kind to give up. It isn't like Arcane Archer checking to see if you have the ability to cast 1st level arcane spells. Improved Familiar simply states that they do not gain that ability. The fact that they do not gain that ability anyway doesn't really matter.
Even if you do it in the other order and gain the Improved Familiar first, apply the Polyglot Familiar feat giving it the ability to Speak with Animals of it's Kind, then apply the Figment Archetype to it taking away the ability that you just granted it.
Look, RAW that works. It may not have been the original intention that such a thing could work when the Archetypes were made. Mark would probably be the first person to tell you that players often find unintended uses for printed material and come with clever ways to use them. Unless Paizo is forcing Mark's original intention then it has no affect on RAW.
And yeah, I know I am going to get a bunch of people coming down on me for ignoring Developer intent. But bear in mind that is exactly what others here are already choosing to do when they say things like, "Also I have problems with that SKR post because Pathfinder is absolutely terrible about making sure things that are different have different names."
I don't see Jeff Merola's opinion and mine being all that far apart. He seems basically of the opinion that while he respects Developer input that he isn't taking it as gospel unless it is codified in the rules or an official ruling is made. So while SKR said that things that do the same thing should basically be the same (being applicable to Speak with Animals of it's Kind in this thread) that Jeff doesn't think that it should apply in this situation. And for me although Mark is saying that while it wasn't his intent to allow Archetypes to apply to Improved Familiars he also isn't outright saying that it can't work per RAW.
Personally I dislike the wishy washy giving of opinion but prefacing it that this is to be considered "intent" but not a "ruling" mentality as a whole. People don't come to the forums because they want to know someone's opinion about how they think something should work. They want a ruling. I'm not trying to come down on any Developers here but while we players totally care what your personal opinions are in general when we are asking if something works we don't want "just my opinion, bro". We want a ruling. Something concrete. Something that holds water one way or another. Players want to know what they can bring to a table without having to "expect table variation" and DMs want to know what way to rule on something without having to deal with players pointing to ambiguous "just my opinion, bro but not an actual ruling" Dev posts.
Independent of the other questions but with respect to the order of operations there: Since the Improved Familiar is a different creature, if it was to have an archetype, it would need to apply it separately (and it might not be the same archetype the other one had) and check a through e. The same is true if your familiar dies and you get a different one (it gets fun when you're a Chosen One, though).
As to personal opinions from an individual designer (or developer, but in this case, designer) rather than an official ruling via post, they're what you see because of the official policy on designer and developer posts.
Mark: That is the order I figured that it went in. That is why what Jeff was saying about "base familiar" was confusing to me.
And I know that is the policy now but it wasn't always that way. There are benefits on both sides and downfalls on both sides. I appreciate that you have weighed in on the Archetypes questions several times, Mark. I really do. It is what I like to see in Devs and Designers. I'm just not sure it is good form to disqualify your own opinion before giving it.
Since you are here though, care to weigh in on whether Polyglot Familiar allows you to meet the requirements for being able to Speak with Animals of it's Kind (whether it was originally intended to or not)? ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark: That is the order I figured that it went in. That is why what Jeff was saying about "base familiar" was confusing to me.
And I know that is the policy now but it wasn't always that way. There are benefits on both sides and downfalls on both sides. I appreciate that you have weighed in on the Archetypes questions several times, Mark. I really do. It is what I like to see in Devs and Designers. I'm just not sure it is good form to disqualify your own opinion before giving it.
Since you are here though, care to weigh in on whether Polyglot Familiar allows you to meet the requirements for being able to Speak with Animals of it's Kind (whether it was originally intended to or not)? ;P
I need to disqualify it as an official ruling so that people don't think that it is one, since I don't have the power to make one in a messageboard post (nor at all for a Player Companion).
However, the Polyglot Familiar question is really going towards a larger question of: "After I traded a feature out, can I get that feature from a feat/magic item/other source in order to take two archetypes that both replace the same feature?" which seems to be officially answered as "No" to me based on this FAQ, even more so for double removal than for other alterations because of all the order of operations hijinks with determining "when" something is removed and added back. That said, as I've said before, while I agree with that FAQ as a general rule to avoid cans of worms, in my home game, our group softens that FAQ in cases when we feel like the double alteration is extremely minimal or otherwise doesn't affect the trade-offs of the two archetypes.
Wait... what? That FAQ says absolutely nothing about switching out an ability granted by a feat, magic item or other source.
I am really trying to not be dense here. I think maybe your idea of "officially answered as 'no'" and my idea that are very far apart.
Mark said his opinion was based on that FAQ, not that the question was answered by the FAQ.
Basically:
Improved Familiar replaces Speak with Animals
Figment Familiar replaces Speak with Animals
Therefore, the two do not stack. (And feats, etc. cannot change that)
Right, my opinion is that this would be covered as a subset of that FAQ; it doesn't matter if you got the ability again elsewhere, since you already can't stack them because they both alter/remove the same element. It's not a 100% slam dunk where the question asked here is the same as the FAQ question, but I feel it's pretty solid.
I mean... this would be more akin to using an Anaconda's Coils to qualify for taking Final Embrace. Or using Versatile Channeler to qualify for Command Undead and Turn Undead.
Or better yet, the best example I can think of. If you took a Cleric archetype that gets rid of your Channel Energy ability like Divine Strategist, but then gained Channel Energy via the Adapt Channel feat. Would they then qualify for being able to switch out their Channel Energy ability for another archetype that removes this ability (no example really exists for the last part)?
To me, if you have the ability to switch out (regardless of how you obtained that ability) then it is fair game to be switched out.
I mean, honestly... are we talking about disallowing this from a power perspective? How powerful do you really think it is to take 2 feats (Improved Familiar and Polyglot Familiar) just to have the ability to give up Improved Evasion, deliver touch spells, speak with animals of its kind, and scry on familiar only to have the opportunity to have half your Familiar's normal hit points, not be able to exist in an anti magic zone or while it's master is unconscious and get a few evolution points (that don't have a base form requirement)?
Because if we are forgoing that the concern about allowing such shenanigans is related to gaining an edge in power then what are we left with? Just disliking shenanigans in general?
And cmon... who is going to admit to disliking shenanigans as a whole? Liers, thats who. ;)
Jeff: Thats just like... your opinion, man.
Seriously though. While I respect you having your own opinion on these things you are still dismissing one Dev's opinions and supplanting it with your own. It is a bit ironic as that is the same thing you are saying that I am doing. You can justify it by giving reasons why doubt is cast on SKR's post all you like it doesn't change that you are disagreeing with the Dev and his reasoning behind same should be same and different needs to say it is different.
Also, I think I have about the complete opposite opinion about how Polyglot Familiar works with a Pseudodragon. And saying why "its there" is like claiming you know the intent. No, its worse, actually. Its like saying not only do you know the intent but that you can only use it for the intended reason it was created and you aren't allowed to use it for anything else regardless of RAW legality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... this would be more akin to using an Anaconda's Coils to qualify for taking Final Embrace. Or using Versatile Channeler to qualify for Command Undead and Turn Undead.
Or better yet, the best example I can think of. If you took a Cleric archetype that gets rid of your Channel Energy ability like Divine Strategist, but then gained Channel Energy via the Adapt Channel feat. Would they then qualify for being able to switch out their Channel Energy ability for another archetype that removes this ability (no example really exists for the last part)?
To me, if you have the ability to switch out (regardless of how you obtained that ability) then it is fair game to be switched out.
I mean, honestly... are we talking about disallowing this from a power perspective? How powerful do you really think it is to take 2 feats (Improved Familiar and Polyglot Familiar) just to have the ability to give up Improved Evasion, deliver touch spells, speak with animals of its kind, and scry on familiar only to have the opportunity to have half your Familiar's normal hit points, not be able to exist in an anti magic zone or while it's master is unconscious and get a few evolution points (that don't have a base form requirement)?
Because if we are forgoing that the concern about allowing such shenanigans is related to gaining an edge in power then what are we left with? Just disliking shenanigans in general?
And cmon... who is going to admit to disliking shenanigans as a whole? Liers, thats who. ;)
Your bolded example is the one that applies here, since it's about two things that both trade out the same feature (the others are about taking feats and their prerequisites, which is a separate but still an excellent question; you seem to come up with good ones pretty often, Lune!). The linked FAQ directly does not allow the bolded example of Divine Strategist + NoChannels (the hypothetical second archetype that replaces channels).
Honestly, my group would be more likely to allow this with a figment or a few of the other options in a home game, but protector (or mauler) with regeneration is a lot more sketchy, and we wouldn't allow either of those on an Improved Familiar.
As for your cleric example: No. That's expressly forbidden by archetype rules. You can't combine archetypes that even modify the same ability.
...yes. You can. The FAQ that Mark linked above explains the ways that this is allowable.
The linked FAQ directly does not allow the bolded example of Divine Strategist + NoChannels (the hypothetical second archetype that replaces channels).
No, I'm sorry, Mark, the FAQ does not say anything about that. The FAQ is silent about being able to switch out abilities granted by a feat, magic item or other source.
That is what this thread is talking about. If you gain a class ability (in this case Speak with Animals of your Kind) via a feat (in this case Polyglot Familiar), magic item or other source are you able to swap that out in an archetype (Figment) that replaces that ability?
KingOfAnything: No. It was a Hypothetical Weasel which is not entirely unlike an Improved Figment Weasel.
The linked FAQ directly does not allow the bolded example of Divine Strategist + NoChannels (the hypothetical second archetype that replaces channels).No, I'm sorry, Mark, the FAQ does not say anything about that. The FAQ is silent about being able to switch out abilities granted by a feat, magic item or other source.
Ah, I see the confusion now. It's because the FAQ makes an even stronger statement: Divine Strategist and "NoChannels" both alter the same class feature (channel energy). Thus, by the FAQ, you can't take them together, ever, regardless of anything else (this is directly the question mentioned in the FAQ). Thus, it is also true that you can't use a feat or magic item to swap into the second archetype because you already can't take them both under any circumstances.
This is why we were saying that the question of two cleric archetypes falls under the umbrella of the FAQ, even though it wasn't directly mentioned.
Incidentally, I've intentionally only been answering the larger question of archetype stacking because it falls under the rules FAQ; this still isn't definitive in this specific case, since arguments could be made that familiar archetypes might not hold to the precedent, and the rules FAQ won't necessarily cover that distinction because the concept of "familiar archetype" doesn't exist in the RPG line.
But that isn't what is happening here. There are no two archetypes that are being taken. There is one archetype and one feat giving a class ability.
Like I said, the real bare bones question is this:
Can you qualify for an archetype by taking a feat that grants a class ability that you would not normally have to give up?
And yeah... I understand that we are still using some fuzzy analogies which make things impossible to answer if you are trying to keep to that analogy.
And yeah... I understand that we are still using some fuzzy analogies which make things impossible to answer if you are trying to keep to that analogy.
Indeed. It's tricky as you say because it's otherwise very difficult to lose a feature to begin with without using archetypes. Another way to square the circle would be to determine "should Improved Familiar be treated for the familiar as akin to a familiar archetype when determining its interaction with familiar archetypes". If the answer is "Yes", then you get a definitive answer that way as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Faelyn: I am not doubting you but rather curious where that rule for PFS is printed?
Hey Lune, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. It is not expressly spelled out, but as you can see it falls into the fact that an Improved Familiar does not have the Speak with Animals of its Kind ability and therefore would not be able to take the archetype.
As far as the Polyglot Familiar feat, I would say expect table variation on that one. For a home game I would allow it, but for PFS I would say no. Here's my reasoning; archetypes do not change out feats, they change out features and those are two very different things. That feat does not specifically grant your familiar the Speak with Animals of its Kind feature; it only grants your familiar an ability similar to that feature.
*EDIT*
Now if the Polyglot Familiar feat specifically stated that it granted "Speak with Animals of Its Kind (Ex)", then I would completely agree to your argument; however, it does not. It gives your familiar ability that is similar to it and that is the key when it comes to PFS rules.
So then would the Patron Familiar granting that ability work for all the Archetypes that switch out Speak with Animals of its Kind except the Figment which specifically prohibits it?
Is our hang up down to finding the minutia in the differences in language that Polyglot Familiar uses (like honestly just leaving off the "(Ex)")?
Edit: I mean, I will admit that I really want this to work. I can tell from the number of threads on this that I'm not alone in that desire too. *waves at Kalindlara* It seems so close to actually working that you need a fine toothed comb and magnifying glass to make it not work. Thats why I bring up the SKR post because it seems like it is against the spirit of feat to disallow it from working.
I mean... this would be more akin to using an Anaconda's Coils to qualify for taking Final Embrace.
As of the most recent errata to Ultimate Combat, this option is no longer viable. (Just wanted to let you know!)
So then would the Patron Familiar granting that ability work for all the Archetypes that switch out Speak with Animals of its Kind except the Figment which specifically prohibits it?
Is our hang up down to finding the minutia in the differences in language that Polyglot Familiar uses (like honestly just leaving off the "(Ex)")?
Edit: I mean, I will admit that I really want this to work. I can tell from the number of threads on this that I'm not alone in that desire too. *waves at Kalindlara* It seems so close to actually working that you need a fine toothed comb and magnifying glass to make it not work. Thats why I bring up the SKR post because it seems like it is against the spirit of feat to disallow it from working.
Just to clarify, you are referring to this?
Animals—Animal Speaker (Su): The familiar gains the ability to speak with animals of its kind at 1st level. If it would normally gain this ability at 7th level, the familiar gains the ability to speak with all animals (as though constantly under the effects of speak with animals) at 7th level.
That is a tough one. I'm inclined to say that I would allow this to work with an Improved Familiar and the Figment archetype, because it specifically grants ANY familiar the Feature Speak with Animals of its Kind. Whereas the Polyglot Familiar feat provides something akin to that Feature.
I know it feels like we are splitting hairs, Lune, but when it comes down to PFS you have to go to a table expecting the worst outcome, because this isn't a clear cut example. It's very hazy and it could go either way.
Just to let you know, I'm on your side with this. I wish Improved Familiars could take any familiar archetype, because you could open up some amazing combos with the Eldritch Guardian, the Mauler archetype, and Improved Familiar.
As of the most recent errata to Ultimate Combat, this option is no longer viable. (Just wanted to let you know!)
Son... of... You really just like giving bad news don't you? ;)
I know it feels like we are splitting hairs, Lune...
It really really does. I mean, don't take it personally but I feel like it isn't just splitting hairs but going out of your (the collective your) way to make something not work that really should. It does seem clear cut to me. And I know it probably seems like I'm beating a dead horse but this seems like exactly the kind of thing SKR was ranting about where same=same and to be different it should actually be different.
Also, to me at least, it is less about the amazing combos and more about the concept.
As of the most recent errata to Ultimate Combat, this option is no longer viable. (Just wanted to let you know!)Son... of... You really just like giving bad news don't you? ;)
I know it feels like we are splitting hairs, Lune...It really really does. I mean, don't take it personally but I feel like it isn't just splitting hairs but going out of your (the collective your) way to make something not work that really should. It does seem clear cut to me. And I know it probably seems like I'm beating a dead horse but this seems like exactly the kind of thing SKR was ranting about where same=same and to be different it should actually be different.
Also, to me at least, it is less about the amazing combos and more about the concept.
LOL! Yeah, my PFS grappling Brawler was very saddened to see that get errata'd.
Like I said, I'm on your said here. As a GM, I would totally allow that feat to function as you want it to; giving Improved Familiars archetypes is by no means overpowered (in my opinion). We are basically playing Devil's advocate for you in regards to PFS, because unfortunately without a clear cut call from the PDT the idea is quite vague. (Also unfortunately is that most of the time the PDT does not make calls on books like the Familiar Folio...) You may be able to make this work without any issue with your local area GMs for PFS (if that's your plan), but then go to play with a different GM that says "Whoa, what? You cannot do that!". That's why we are pointing out the issues you may run into.
Also, don't worry I didn't take anything personally!
Man, my condition stacking Monk got hit hard by errata. First, they turned off his flurry of maneuvers when he wears armor which is a double whammy because he also lost his Brawling armor. And I somehow missed that he can no longer get Final Embrace either. Its... its like someone was out to screw that character specifically. I think someone at Paizo is saying, "Lets look what Lune is building now. Oh whats this? Nope, can't have any of that..." *nerfbat!*
...also, now I think Paizo has a pre-crime division devoted to watching me and making things like this illegal before I even make the character. (Actually, I suppose that is better than making a character and getting it nerfed into oblivion after it is built.)
What? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't actually watching me...