Yes, for the VMC wizard, but then you have Shaman 5 as well and the EH 5-2=3, you're leaving out important bits, and saying some of the rules don't even apply here without proof as to why other than repeating, "But character level," which is accounted for with more still left to work with.
Both VMC and Shaman say they use your level (character and class level respectively) as your effective Wizard level. If those stacked, then Shaman would stack with its own effective Wizard level. EH uses different language, but the same test applies- if they stack, then Arcane Sorc's levels would stack with its own effective Wizard levels. All non-Wizard familiars would progress at double speed.
No Quidest, they act as those wizard levels, those aren't seperate from the other class, heck the "Effective wizard level" part is actually redundant because of the wording of the familiars section after the wizard class in the CRB, where it states, "Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level," and nowhere in that sentence does it say anything about wizard levels.
It's pretty clear you two aren't going to agree on the matter, so I'm not sure what the point of this arguing is. The idea that you can't have a level 13 familiar at level 5, while logical and evidently RAI, is not spelled out RAW in the books.
Let's just hope the original poster can find a GM willing to tolerate the smell of the cheese he wants to bring to the table, so he can at least get some measure of satisfaction.
I have redacted my latest prior statement that was made after misreading something from Saethori. :P
And as for Faelyn, the "I can walk up walls b/c gravity is RAI," arguement is in a sense defeated by the RAW climb speed, being how that works. And as for the other part, the ioun stone/ magical knack and companion boon things are given RAW limits, familiars scaling isn't either, it's just got a chart that isn't past 20 b/c class levels only go up "that high" and it's not expected anyone actually do this and it wasn't future proofed like the 2 examples you gave, though I see your point, unlike everyone elses' wierd (if there) pseudo-evidence, and I view it as a valid way to look at this, though I feel comfy in this loophole I've stumbled upon. :P
I think I'll end this with "agree to disagree". Clearly you are convinced your interpretation is backed by the rules and I completely disagree. That being said, good luck to you sir/madam!
The chart only goes to 20, and I stand corrected on the measure of those abilities, but that can easily be fixed via a small tweak or just keep progressing down the path already layed out.You mean... just make stuff up?
So much for 'strict RAW'.
I never said it had to be strict RAW, just RAW. And in this context it'd have to end up being RAI, because the failure to future proof familiar rulings.
I think I'll end this with "agree to disagree". Clearly you are convinced your interpretation is backed by the rules and I completely disagree. That being said, good luck to you sir/madam!
Ah, and same to you Faelyn. *tips hat with a nod* May our paths cross another day, maybe then finding that we agree there. (See what I did there? It's a play on words. :)
Oh! I just realized something regarding a prior entry of mine. I forgot to say, "To me this whole thing is kind of a thought experiment based on the rules I could find in PF, kinda like a *SUPER* dumbed down version of 3.5E D&D's Pun Pun." This is the kinda stuff I do as a hobby, think "as the box" kinda... Well, based on/in the rules but outside enough to be a quirky thing, some may say it's out there and that's cause it sorta is. :P Anyway, I hope you all have/had a wonderful time trying to deciphering this mess we've made. Hehehe, I know I did. Good day/afternoon/evening/night, and have a wonderful time away from this oddity of rulings. *bows* Cya.
Levels can only be counted for something once. you level of shaman can be counted as shaman level for your familiar or treated as part of your character level for a familiar. the one level can't create two levels worth of familiar.
At 3rd level, he gains a familiar, treating his character level as his effective wizard level.
Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack with shaman levels for the purpose of determining any spirit animal abilities that depend on the shaman’s level.
you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object.
For purposes of using that power, treat your sorcerer level as equal to your character level – 2
Hmm, due to the fact that there isn't anything that says your effective wizard level can't exceed your character level, and because these all seem to be written such that they are very inclusive to stacking I'd have to say that they would stack.
However, this really isn't actually very good, for a few reasons.
1. You will be feat starved because you only get half of them and you need to take skill focus in a knowledge as well as eldritch heritage.
2. Having a really high effective wizard level doesn't actually do that much. The familiar's effective Hit Dice, Hit Points, Attacks, Saving Throws, and Skills are completely unaffected by your really high effective level.
3. So, by the earliest you can typically get this online of 5th level, all your familiar really gets that it doesn't already have is an extra +4 natural armor, a +4 to Intelligence, Speak With Animials of its Kind, Spell Resistance(Actually very good at 18), and you can scry on it once a day.
4. Once your effective level reaches 20, unless your gm is up for expanding the table beyond 20th, your familiar won't gain anything more.
All in all, doing this probably isn't as powerful as just sticking to the base shaman. Also, it seems that this really isn't the intent behind these various abilities so most gms probably won't allow this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Familiar shenanigans... maybe?
am I wrong here?
I miss this tone of voice. The voice that thought maybe their reading wasn't perfect, and that they were asking if it was the case or not, in the pursuit of knowledge.
Sometimes, the road to learning is accepting a possibility that you might be wrong, instead of "I'm right, prove otherwise or shut up". The latter doesn't lead to learning, nor friendship. It just leads to friction and confrontation.
This thread is so painful to read. The abilities clearly don't stack like that and the immense resistance to logic and reason being displayed by a few people here is staggering.
I have read the whole thread.
I have never had a familiar.
I have no interest in them.
I do have interest in a specific rule: bonuses from the same source NEVER stack.
Now as many people have stated, you level up your familiar if you have levels in a familiar granting class. Nobody disagrees on that.
Now there are many feats and abilities that leat you treat non familiar granting class levels as familiar granting class levels. But they are not actually familiar granting class levels. The source for these effective class levels, as has been pointed out, is the character class levels in all cases.
Now bonuses from the same source do not stack. I can't have 5 bless spells cast and have a +5. Exactly as I can't count my 5 shaman levels as 13 levels due to them being interpretted in different ways by different abilities.
If there was a feat that says: treat your familiar as 4 levels higher.
Well then that would stack.
None of these feats say that. They all say in one way or another that your character level counts as wizard level for familiar.
All the same source. Character level.
Read your proposal. 5 levels of shaman count as 13 of wizard for familiar. That sentence tells you the source. The 5 shaman levels. Therefore the bonuses do not stack. End of story.
Same as bloodrager and barbarian not letting you rage twice for double bonus.
Saethori, that was actually really significant... I will reflect upon that... thank you.
I appologize if it seems I am telling people to shut up if they cant prove anything, I just dont like when all someone says is no...
never the less, you are right... my tone has changed and I am going to think about that.
But very few people just outright said "No, you're wrong." We all tried to explain to you within the rules and citing the rules to backup our points. You simply disagree with them, and that's fine. That being said, you are not going to convince any of us that you are right within the Rules. That is why I said there is literally nothing more to can say at this point. And I would suggest taking this to one of the Paizo employees Ask Me Anything threads if you don't believe us. Mark Seifter would be a good one to ask. Heres a link to his thread.
that has literally been pointed out more then three times now.
Why resurrect a two-month dead thread just to argue with someone?