I receive iron will as a bonus feat, so i figure i'd have a look at the familiar bond feat, which nets me a familiar.
My question: Can a familiar gained in this way choose an archetype, for example "mascot"?
Edit: (obviously not gaining any of the abilities that replace or modify abilities he doesnt have)
In theory, yes. However, it would have to be an archetype that doesn't replace or modify any abilities your familiar doesn't get, at any level. I don't believe there are any like that. Mascot, for instance, alters "deliver touch spells" at 5th level, which is enough to disqualify your familiar from taking the archetype even at 1st level.
It's a grey rules area. Technically, there are no rules saying that the familiar has to have all of the traded abilities to take an archetype, but this is clearly the intent.
|
They have to have the ability to trade it out. This is the same reasoning why an improved familiar can not take an archetype. But, lucky for you, it's worth it to take the next feat in the series to get the archetype. Depending on your build.
My Eldritch Knight is a big fan of protector familiars. You get 150% HP that way.
But if you want a mauler, I would not suggest it. Since for a mauler to work you really need the Mauler HP feat on top of that.
It's a grey rules area. Technically, there are no rules saying that the familiar has to have all of the traded abilities to take an archetype, but this is clearly the intent.
Yeah, I'd think of the familiar bond feat as "you get a bike, but it has training wheels" or "you get a computer, but it has no internet", that doesnt mean it cant be a PC OR a mac, buuuuuuuuuut i'm biased in favor of getting to apply an archetype to it, hence the post to discuss!
They have to have the ability to trade it out. This is the same reasoning why an improved familiar can not take an archetype.
There's also no official rule saying that. It's just the assumed intent.
They have to have the ability to trade it out. This is the same reasoning why an improved familiar can not take an archetype. But, lucky for you, it's worth it to take the next feat in the series to get the archetype. Depending on your build.
My Eldritch Knight is a big fan of protector familiars. You get 150% HP that way.But if you want a mauler, I would not suggest it. Since for a mauler to work you really need the Mauler HP feat on top of that.
The ability I actually want is:
Lucky Mascot
Whenever a mascot uses the aid another action to aid a team member's attack roll or AC, that team member also gains a +1 luck bonus on all attack rolls or to AC for 1 round.
This ability replaces improved evasion..
He technically gets improved evasion with familiar bond, but I would obviously say he doesnt get any abilities that replace abilities he doesnt have
|
|
They have to have the ability to trade it out. This is the same reasoning why an improved familiar can not take an archetype.There's also no official rule saying that. It's just the assumed intent.
No, that is an official rule.
Unless you are assuming archetype rules are different for familiars than they are for PCs... which they are not.Archetype rules include, but are not limited to:
You must qualify for an archetype in its entirety.
Archetypes can not replace something that is altered or replaced by something else.
Archetypes can replace part of a subsystem if the part of the subsystem replaced is not altered or replaced by something else.(Legal: Have 2 archetypes; One archetype replaces Weapon Training 1 and the second archetype replaces Weapon Training 2)
...
This is a fact in the game. But, of course with all game facts... you can ask your GM to allow it if it is a home game.
They have to have the ability to trade it out. This is the same reasoning why an improved familiar can not take an archetype.There's also no official rule saying that. It's just the assumed intent.No, that is an official rule.
Unless you are assuming archetype rules are different for familiars than they are for PCs... which they are not.
Where does it say they are?
|
|
Where does it say they are?They have to have the ability to trade it out. This is the same reasoning why an improved familiar can not take an archetype.There's also no official rule saying that. It's just the assumed intent.No, that is an official rule.
Unless you are assuming archetype rules are different for familiars than they are for PCs... which they are not.
... it's an archetype. It says it in its very name. Also, any time a dev discusses it.
A morale bonus is always a morale bonus, no matter what game feature it applies to.
... it's an archetype. It says it in its very name. Also, any time a dev discusses it.A morale bonus is always a morale bonus, no matter what game feature it applies to.
Does a monstrous humanoid count as a humanoid?
Maybe i should have submitted this as a rules question...
The only thing i can find is about archetype stacking, and that if an archetype changes/replaces class features then another cant, it doesnt say anything about when class features are denied for other reasons, of course it also doesnt specifically mention familiar archetypes either. (instead favoring a general "archetype" wording, albeit as a subsection to class archetypes)
|
|
Does a monstrous humanoid count as a humanoid?
... it's an archetype. It says it in its very name. Also, any time a dev discusses it.A morale bonus is always a morale bonus, no matter what game feature it applies to.
Apples and oranges.
You may as well have attempted to argue ' is a morale bonus an enhancement bonus '. No to both. But not even your basic premise works. As an archetype is not made of two words that individually have meaning.
Do yourself a favor and look up dev posts about cavalier AC archetypes.
Apples and oranges.You may as well have attempted to argue ' is a morale bonus an enhancement bonus '. No to both. But not even your basic premise works. As an archetype is not made of two words that individually have meaning.
Apples and oranges. There is no such thing as a "morale enhancement" bonus. There is such a thing as a "familiar archetype", just as there is such a thing as a "monstrous humanoid".
Do yourself a favor and look up dev posts about cavalier AC archetypes.
And that's why I said in my first post that the intent is pretty clear. The point isn't in how you "should" rule, but in how you "could" rule on this subject. A DM can rule either way and still not technically be using a house rule. One interpretation is just more liberal than another.
'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
But class archetype options are only denied under the archetype STACKING section, IE, gaining more than one archetype.
You don't have the features to trade out, so you can't take the archetype. Archetypes can't be broken up such that you only get a patchwork selection of their features. Even if you feel the archetype rules don't apply here or the archetype rules fail to cover the scenario, they definitely don't have rules for replacing features you never had to begin with.
Useful note, though- the Sage familiar archetype doesn't trade anything you don't have! Best on a talking bird if you're getting it before level 5.
Maybe i should have submitted this as a rules question...
The only thing i can find is about archetype stacking, and that if an archetype changes/replaces class features then another cant, it doesnt say anything about when class features are denied for other reasons, of course it also doesnt specifically mention familiar archetypes either. (instead favoring a general "archetype" wording, albeit as a subsection to class archetypes)
This is a good point, I guess I can put Vivisectionist on my Fighter to get sneak attack, it doesn't say I can't trade away class features I don't have because I'm a different class. As long as I don't use inconsistent archetypes from other classes I'm good, then.
'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
Curses, foiled again.
But class archetypes are only denied under the archetype STACKING section, IE, gaining more than one archetype.'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
Aaaaand we're back, folks!
(Obviously you can't trade away features you don't have to get new features, guys. Not even on your cute little scorpion.)
This is a good point, I guess I can put Vivisectionist on my Fighter to get sneak attack, it doesn't say I can't trade away class features I don't have because I'm a different class.Maybe i should have submitted this as a rules question...
The only thing i can find is about archetype stacking, and that if an archetype changes/replaces class features then another cant, it doesnt say anything about when class features are denied for other reasons, of course it also doesnt specifically mention familiar archetypes either. (instead favoring a general "archetype" wording, albeit as a subsection to class archetypes)
except the vivisectionist is specifically an alchemist archetype, which makes your catty comment pointless.
Aaaaand we're back, folks!
(Obviously you can't trade away features you don't have to get new features, guys. Not even on your cute little scorpion.)
See the "(obviously not gaining any of the abilities that replace or modify abilities he doesnt have)" that was edited in yesterday to the first post?
Edit: 3 hours ago, my mistake
except the vivisectionist is specifically an alchemist archetype, which makes your catty comment pointless.This is a good point, I guess I can put Vivisectionist on my Fighter to get sneak attack, it doesn't say I can't trade away class features I don't have because I'm a different class.Maybe i should have submitted this as a rules question...
The only thing i can find is about archetype stacking, and that if an archetype changes/replaces class features then another cant, it doesnt say anything about when class features are denied for other reasons, of course it also doesnt specifically mention familiar archetypes either. (instead favoring a general "archetype" wording, albeit as a subsection to class archetypes)
The familiar archetypes are specifically for full familiars with the full range of abilities, making this whole exercise rather pointless.
Are familiar archetypes suddenly ok on improved familiars when they also don't have the required abilities to trade away?
Of course you can't get a full powered familiar alternative on a gimped familiar.
The familiar archetypes are specifically for full familiars with the full range of abilities, making this whole exercise rather pointless.
Source?
|
|
But class archetype options are only denied under the archetype STACKING section, IE, gaining more than one archetype.'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
'When an archetype includes multiple alternate class features, a character must take them all—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain standard class features, but replacing them with other options.'
PRD on archetype.
But class archetype options are only denied under the archetype STACKING section, IE, gaining more than one archetype.'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
'When an archetype includes multiple alternate class features, a character must take them all—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain standard class features, but replacing them with other options.'
PRD on archetype.
Ah. But familiars don't have "class" features.
except the vivisectionist is specifically an alchemist archetype, which makes your catty comment pointless.This is a good point, I guess I can put Vivisectionist on my Fighter to get sneak attack, it doesn't say I can't trade away class features I don't have because I'm a different class.Maybe i should have submitted this as a rules question...
The only thing i can find is about archetype stacking, and that if an archetype changes/replaces class features then another cant, it doesnt say anything about when class features are denied for other reasons, of course it also doesnt specifically mention familiar archetypes either. (instead favoring a general "archetype" wording, albeit as a subsection to class archetypes)
The familiar archetypes are specifically for full familiars with the full range of abilities, making this whole exercise rather pointless.
Are familiar archetypes suddenly ok on improved familiars when they also don't have the required abilities to trade away?
Of course you can't get a full powered familiar alternative on a gimped familiar.
You dont seem to be understanding that by our interpretation you'd only get the abilities that you have replaced. IE: improved evasion becomes Lucky mascot, but you dont have Speak with Team because you are denied speak with animals.
I'd love actual facts from a source rather than saying your interpretation is immutable.
I'd say that familiar bond functions more to deny you access to those abilities or the abilities you get instead due to a different archetype.
|
|
Ah. But familiars don't have "class" features.But class archetype options are only denied under the archetype STACKING section, IE, gaining more than one archetype.'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
'When an archetype includes multiple alternate class features, a character must take them all—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain standard class features, but replacing them with other options.'
PRD on archetype.
I'll quote this again. Read it three times. Then reread your comment.
'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'Animal Archive
Ah. But familiars don't have "class" feature.But class archetype options are only denied under the archetype STACKING section, IE, gaining more than one archetype.'Archetypes modify familiars' standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters' class features.'
Animal Archive
'When an archetype includes multiple alternate class features, a character must take them all—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain standard class features, but replacing them with other options.'
PRD on archetype.
So? Familiar archetypes are stated to work similarly to class archetypes. Anyway, you're not going to find RAW saying how to handle features you don't have the replaced ability for if you take a conflicting archetype, so doing so enters house rule territory. At that point, ask your GM.
|
|
You dont seem to be understanding that by our interpretation you'd only get the abilities that you have replaced. IE: improved evasion becomes Lucky mascot, but you dont have Speak with Team because you are denied speak with animals.
I'd love actual facts from a source rather than saying your interpretation is immutable.
Read my posts then.
My two quotes handle this completely.
My two quotes handle this completely.
But your posts only talk about class archetype stacking for player characters, not nonclass single archetype usage for nonplayer characters...
Edit: Apples and Basketballs, they're both round, therefore they're the same, basketball pie anyone?
The thing about "similar" is that it doesn't really define anything. A fork is similar to a car, as both are made of metal. The only thing the word similar tells you about two things is that they are different. As a fork cannot be similar to a fork.
except the vivisectionist is specifically an alchemist archetype, which makes your catty comment pointless.This is a good point, I guess I can put Vivisectionist on my Fighter to get sneak attack, it doesn't say I can't trade away class features I don't have because I'm a different class.Maybe i should have submitted this as a rules question...
The only thing i can find is about archetype stacking, and that if an archetype changes/replaces class features then another cant, it doesnt say anything about when class features are denied for other reasons, of course it also doesnt specifically mention familiar archetypes either. (instead favoring a general "archetype" wording, albeit as a subsection to class archetypes)
The familiar archetypes are specifically for full familiars with the full range of abilities, making this whole exercise rather pointless.
Are familiar archetypes suddenly ok on improved familiars when they also don't have the required abilities to trade away?
Of course you can't get a full powered familiar alternative on a gimped familiar.
You dont seem to be understanding that by our interpretation you'd only get the abilities that you have replaced. IE: improved evasion becomes Lucky mascot, but you dont have Speak with Team because you are denied speak with animals.
I'd love actual facts from a source rather than saying your interpretation is immutable.
Archetypes have been stated to be package deals.
Mark Seifter stated that Improved Familiars being locked out of most familiar archetypes because they don't get Speak With Animals Of Its Kind was a happy accident. (Since before, Improved Familiar was such an obvious choice.)The rules don't say you can do that, so at that point it's up to your GM.
Anyway, you're not going to find RAW saying how to handle features you don't have the replaced ability for if you take a conflicting archetype, so doing so enters house rule territory. At that point, ask your GM.
The point is that it isn't a "houserule". It's just an overly liberal interpretation.
|
|
So? Familiar archetypes are stated to work similarly to class archetypes. Anyway, you're not going to find RAW saying how to handle features you don't have the replaced ability for if you take a conflicting archetype, so doing so enters house rule territory. At that point, ask your GM.
You won't find it because you must take all features of an archetype. Not just ones you like or qualify for.
|
|
My two quotes handle this completely.
But your posts only talk about class archetype stacking for player characters, not nonclass single archetype usage for nonplayer characters...
Edit: Apples and Basketballs, they're both round, therefore they're the same, basketball pie anyone?
Reread them. One explains that for a familiar archetype you replace familiar standard abilities like class archetypes replace class features.
The second explains that you must take all features of an archetype.
So? Familiar archetypes are stated to work similarly to class archetypes. Anyway, you're not going to find RAW saying how to handle features you don't have the replaced ability for if you take a conflicting archetype, so doing so enters house rule territory. At that point, ask your GM.You won't find it because you must take all features of an archetype. Not just ones you like or qualify for.
I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Edit: Dont get me wrong i'm essentially pointing out that the rules have holes, at the end of the day, until i find a ruling that actually plugs up said hole it'll always be up to interpretation.
|
|
I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
One of the qualifiers for a feature is you must have the feature to replace it. There are tons of dev posts and faqs about this.
There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.
Since we are trying to quote them, here are the entire rules for Familiar Archetypes:
Familiar archetypes modify familiars’ standard abilities, similar to how class archetypes modify player characters’ class features. These archetypes function by swapping out certain abilities that are standard to common familiars for new abilities tailored to particular themes.
Unless otherwise stated, levels referenced in this section refer to the familiar’s effective level, which is the master’s combined levels in the classes that grant that familiar.
There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.
There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
I still say the actual archetype rules aren't exactly valid here, because Familiar Archetypes aren't the same as Archetypes, just as Monstrous Humanoids aren't the same as Humanoids. But, if you are going to argue the rules for standard archetypes, be aware that those rules are repeated slightly differently in a few different sources.
Anyway, you're not going to find RAW saying how to handle features you don't have the replaced ability for if you take a conflicting archetype, so doing so enters house rule territory. At that point, ask your GM.The point is that it isn't a "houserule". It's just an overly liberal interpretation.
The house ruling is in how to handle what has liberally decided as an undefined situation. Nothing in the rules works like "you get features that replace the things you have, but not the ones you don't"; that's a house rule. Even if I said that it's correct, it'd be meaningless because I can't support that position with any evidence, so it's up to the GM anyway.
This, my final answer is "It works the same way as the thing it says it works similarly to. The intent is clear, even if the exact wording is meant for archetype stacking. Dev response supports this, but you'll have to take my word on that or look it up in the Familiar Folio product thread yourself. If you disagree with that point, you're going to be asking the GM anyway, and a thread of people arguing about it won't help you case, so just talk to them."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Can you replace something you do not have?
No.Archetypes specifically replace or alter features.
Must you take all archetype features?
Yes.
Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Can you replace something you do not have?
No.
Archetypes specifically replace our alter features.
Must you take all archetype features?
Yes.
Something that just occured to me, if you dont get the benefit from a 3rd level class archetype at level 1 (example zen archery monk) because you dont yet have maneuver training (gained at 3rd level) does that mean monks dont qualify for the zen archer archetype?
No. of course they qualify for it. even if they never hit level 3, they are still able to take the zen archer archetype. Its under the context or archetype STACKING that you cant.
Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
There doesn't seem to actually be rules for that, but that's almost a separate rules argument for another thread. The archetype rules are written assuming that archetypes are the only things that can change the abilities available to a class. They don't tend to address abilities lost to things that aren't archetypes. But there are so many different rules for archetypes spread amongst the books, that maybe somewhere there is an official rule that covers that, and I've just missed it.
A morale bonus is always a morale bonus, no matter what game feature it applies to.
Careful with that sort of arguing.
Courageous used that same terminology (a conjoined game term) to refer to receiving a bonus to Saves V.S. Fear Effects, when by the rules, it referred to increasing any sort of Morale Bonus the wielder received (Raging, Heroism, et. al). They changed it (and therefore made the property very crappy), but at least they made it follow the intent they were after.
9 times out of 10, you'd be correct, but quite frankly, it has happened before where a game term was used to mean something completely different from what the game term originally meant.
On topic, I thought there was a FAQ that said Cavalier Mounts could take Archetypes, even though they don't possess the Share Spells feature, but I can't seem to find it for the life of me.
There doesn't seem to actually be rules for that, but that's almost a separate rules argument for another thread. The archetype rules are written assuming that archetypes are the only things that can change the abilities available to a class. They don't tend to address abilities lost to things that aren't archetypes. But there are so many different rules for archetypes spread amongst the books, that maybe somewhere there is a ruling that covers that, and I've just missed it.Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
^
Im not an rules guru, so i dont claim to know for certain, but unless i see something in black and white, i'd say its a judgement call.
Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Here's a relevant FAQ saying you can't stack two Sorcerer archetypes because they alter the same class feature (even though the FAQ then goes on to say that it's not unreasonable to allow it to stack).
|
|
Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Can you replace something you do not have?
No.
Archetypes specifically replace our alter features.
Must you take all archetype features?
Yes.Something that just occured to me, if you dont get the benefit from a 3rd level class archetype at level 1 (example zen archery monk) because you dont yet have maneuver training (gained at 3rd level) does that mean monks dont qualify for the zen archer archetype?
No. of course they qualify for it. even if they never hit level 3, they are still able to take the zen archer archetype. Its under the context or archetype STACKING that you cant.
Your logic needs work. A class archetype modifies your class. Not you. Just as a familiar archetype adjust familiar abilities they would gain.
Here's a relevant FAQ saying you can't stack two Sorcerer archetypes because they alter the same class feature (even though the FAQ then goes on to say that it's not unreasonable to allow it to stack).Yeah I have been, can't find anything that isnt under "archetype stacking" though.There are More rules to it than stacking. Read the PRD archetype explanation.I thought the only qualifiers for archetypes were class and otherwise listed things (race, feats etc).
And the archetype stacking (under the archetype stacking headline) only specifies that you cant take two ARCHETYPES that replace or remove abilities, and thats only in the context of archetype stacking.
Yes, that's my point, anything even slightly relevant comes from "archetype stacking" rules, not rules governing when you only have one archetype...
|
|
A morale bonus is always a morale bonus, no matter what game feature it applies to.Careful with that sort of arguing.
Courageous used that same terminology (a conjoined game term) to refer to receiving a bonus to Saves V.S. Fear Effects, when by the rules, it referred to increasing any sort of Morale Bonus the wielder received (Raging, Heroism, et. al). They changed it (and therefore made the property very crappy), but at least they made it follow the intent they were after.
9 times out of 10, you'd be correct, but quite frankly, it has happened before where a game term was used to mean something completely different from what the game term originally meant.
On topic, I thought there was a FAQ that said Cavalier Mounts could take Archetypes, even though they don't possess the Share Spells feature, but I can't seem to find it for the life of me.
The thinking is 100% Correct. They wrote the ability wrong. Acknowledged so. And wrote a faq to correct it.
And yes, there is a faq for that. It is the only thing that allows them to take the cavalier specific AC archetype.