|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my question is direct to a specific combination, but probably applies in other situations as well:
Sorcerer, Tattooed Sorcerer Archetype:
Familiar Tattoo (Su)
A tattooed sorcerer gains a familiar as an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her sorcerer level. Her sorcerer levels stack with any wizard or witch levels she possesses when determining the powers of her familiar—this ability does not allow her to have both a familiar and a bonded item.
Wizard, Exploiter Archetype:
Arcane Reservoir (Su)
At 1st level, the exploiter wizard gains the arcanist’s arcane reservoir class feature. The exploiter wizard uses his wizard level as his arcanist level for determining how many arcane reservoir points he gains at each level.
This ability replaces arcane bond.
So what we have is an "Arcane Bond, that stacks with LEVELS" from the Sorcerer, and no "Arcane Bond" ability on the WIZARD LEVELS. So do they still stack?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You would gain a familiar from the Tattooed Sorcerer archetype with a level 1 familiar. And then you get no levels of Familiar progression from the level in Exploiter Wizard. Your familiar would gain progression if you took an archetype that did not remove the Arcane Bond class feature, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The important part in the rule is “when determining the powers of her familiar”. Your wizard archetype has no familiar, so every level of wizard with that archetype grants +0 improvement to the familiar.
A similar situation can be found with rogue’s sneak attack. A vivisectionist alchemist stacks their levels with any levels of rogue when determining the strength of their sneak attack. If you took levels in eldritch scoundrel rogue, your sneak attack progresses at +1/4 per level rather than rogues normal +1/2 per level... or if you went with levels of phantom thief rogue, you get +0 per level... stacking levels doesn’t allow you to ignore the fact that an archetype loses or reduces progression of an ability.
|
I don't know. It says ANY levels of wizard stacks with her sorcerer levels.
It doesn't say anything about those levels requiring anything else.
If someone hasn't the arcane bond ability, stuff that increases the level of the arcane bond does nothing.
There is even FAQ for that:
When do I count as having a class feature?
You have a class feature when your class description tells you you gain that class feature, generally based on your level in that class (and perhaps altered by factors, see below).
If you have an archetype or other rules element that replaces that class feature, you do not have that class feature. For example, if your archetype replaces a rogue's sneak attack, you no longer have the sneak attack class feature (whether a requirement is as general as "sneak attack" or as specific as "sneak attack +1d6," you do not qualify for it).
If you have an archetype or other rules element that replaces part of a scaling class feature, or delays when you get that class feature, you do not have that class feature until you actually gain that class feature.
Example: If you have a fighter archetype that replaces weapon training 1 (but not weapon training 2, 3, and 4), you don't gain the weapon training 2 ability until fighter level 9, which means you don't have the weapon training class ability at all until you reach fighter level 9. Anything with "weapon training" or "weapon training class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 9.
Example: If you have a cleric archetype that replaces channel energy at level 1 (but not later increments of channel energy), you don't gain the channel energy ability until cleric level 3, which means you don't have the channel energy class feature until you reach cleric level 3. Anything with "channel energy" or "channel energy class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 3.
Example: If you have a witch archetype that replaces your hex at level 1 (but not later hexes, major hexes, or grand hexes), you don't gain your first hex ability until witch level 2, which means you don't have the hex class feature until you reach witch level 2. Anything with "hex" or "hex class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 2.
posted July 2013 | back to top
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wording "any wizard or witch levels" doesn't mean "any wizard levels regardless of class features" or "any witch levels regardless of class features", it's a shorthand for "any levels".
Hmmm... I don't think that got across what I'm trying to communicate.
If someone gives a speech on physics and ends it with: I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.", they aren't saying they're there to answer sex-ed questions, or to answer questions on the ethics of former US president Nixon, or the likelyhood that Spiderman could beath The Hulk in a fight. The word "any" doesn't mean "all" in this context, it means "relevant".
I'm certain someone who's studied linguistics could talk about "transitive and objective ad-nouns" and prove this point better, but you get the idea. You're taking the word "any" out of context.
A tattooed sorcerer gains a familiar as an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her sorcerer level. Full stop. Lol.
Sorry, I just really like using Full Stop, and when others do, as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By raw, it doesn't matter, it says levels of wizard and witch count. Full stop. No stipulations.
Actually he's right.
Familiar Tattoo (Su): A tattooed sorcerer gains a familiar as an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her sorcerer level. Her sorcerer levels stack with any wizard or witch levels she possesses FULL STOP
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By raw, it doesn't matter, it says levels of wizard and witch count. Full stop. No stipulations.Actually he's right.
Familiar Tattoo (Su): A tattooed sorcerer gains a familiar as an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her sorcerer level. Her sorcerer levels stack with any wizard or witch levels she possesses FULL STOP
Did... did you seriously just Rick roll a quote?
Why is the Wizard in the second sentence NOT the same Wizard from the first sentence, though?
We can't just look at each sentence individually without the context of the surrounding texts.
The first sentence gives you a Familiar exactly like the Arcane Bond of a Wizard.
Now why would the second sentence be talking about a comoletely different Wizard that lacks the Arcane Bond feature?
That doesn't make any sense. Full Stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did... did you seriously just Rick roll a quote?
Oh how silly of me ;)
Here we are...
Familiar Tattoo (Su): A tattooed sorcerer gains a familiar as an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her sorcerer level. Her sorcerer levels stack with any wizard or witch levels she possesses when determining the powers of her familiar ...
There. Totally a full stop. No stipulations whatsoever ...
EDIT: But seriously Chell, it's good to know that SOMEBODY checks my links ^_^
Why is the Wizard in the second sentence NOT the same Wizard from the first sentence, though?
We can't just look at each sentence individually without the context of the surrounding texts.
The first sentence gives you a Familiar exactly like the Arcane Bond of a Wizard.
Now why would the second sentence be talking about a comoletely different Wizard that lacks the Arcane Bond feature?
That doesn't make any sense. Full Stop.
It’s really quite simple... the line “when determining the powers of her familiar” says it all. Your levels in the classes stack when determining the power of your familiar. If you take levels in wizard with an archetype that gives away familiar, how strong is your familiar? The answer, zero, because you have none. That answer doesn’t change by stacking your familiarless wizard levels with a different familiar granting class... the contribution of your wizard class levels to the power of that familiar is zero. The levels still stack, but the lack of a familiar simple yields a zero gain on familiar power from those levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, specific trumps general, which the sorcerer specifically calling out "any" wizard or witch could still be read as that it doesn't matter if they are not normally entitled to a familiar, and that those levels still count towards familiar abilities.
It could be read that way ... but it's obviously not meant to be. The only way to argue that would be to say by the "strictest RAW" it works ...
... but if we're going to be that strict on RAW we should also be strict on English, and in this case "any" is being used as a plural of "a" in conjunction with a plural unaccountable noun (wizards), NOT as a lack of restriction to wizards.
"Do you want any beer?" = "Do you want beer?"
"... stacks with any wizard levels ..." = "... stacks with wizard levels"
So in this case you can see that the word "any" doesn't really add meaning, it just helps the flow of the sentence (and is gramatically more correct).
How would that sentence read without the word "any"? Let's go to the page and see it again ...
Familiar Tattoo (Su): A tattooed sorcerer gains a familiar as an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her sorcerer level. Her sorcerer levels stack with wizard or witch levels she possesses when determining the powers of her familiar—this ability does not allow her to have both a familiar and a bonded item.
Would you allow an archetype worded this way to stack the way you've been suggesting it should?
EDIT: I changed the last paragraph because it was weird, sorry.
Yes, I would, by raw.
That seems to contradict your previous post ...
So, after searching some stuff up.....
Here is an excerpt from 'familiar rules'
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.
So, even though I was arguing the RAW of the sorcerer gaining familiar bonuses with an archetyped wizard, I have changed my stance due to this rule about familiars.
The wizard without arcane bond is not 'entitled to a familiar' and thus would not stack.
However, specific trumps general, which the sorcerer specifically calling out "any" wizard or witch could still be read as that it doesn't matter if they are not normally entitled to a familiar, and that those levels still count towards familiar abilities.(I crossed this out to show what your post would have looked like if you were discussing the text without the word "any".)
Because I'm not sure if the wording in the sorcerer is meant to refer to this rule in the familiar rules about level stacking or if it's meant to be less restrictive I am going with the more restrictive reading.
I'm not trying to call you out or anything here, just showing how you logically came to the conclusion that this only worked because of the word "any".
IF that's the case, and IF I'm correct about the meaning of the word "any" in this sentence then how does it read to you?
EDIT: Woops, messed up my editing. Should be fixed now =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why restate it?
Because they don't want players to have to go research familiars in another book to know how the class works. Paizo nearly always restates things like this.
Eg. If you take a look HERE, riiight down the bottom it has base speed and reduced speed for encumbrance. It shows that a creature with a base speed of 60 would be reduced to 40 if encumbered, but ...
The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load).
... they put the information in the spell as well.
The put the information in twice so that you don't have to open multiple books to find the rule you're looking for. It also helps to avoid cases where people say "It doesn't SAY your fly speed is rediced by armour in the Fly spell", or "It doesn't SAY your levels stack in Tattooed Sorcerer".
Furthermore, removing the ANY, is not reading it by RAW.
Sorry that wasn't my intention. I wasn't saying we should remove the word "any", I was trying to explain that you've misinterpreted that word in this context, and trying to show something closer to the actual meaning.
Essentially, any argument that hinges on the word "any" to allow this is not a valid argument because it doesn't mean what you think it does. If you have an argument that works without the word "any" then go ahead.
That's just not how English works.
Except that if you do the research and learn the grammar it is
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The CRB rule only covered wizard/sorcerer at the time of writing, since witch was added later. The shaman's spirit animal rules even restate the general rule outright, adding clarifications that give priority to the spirit animal (and, if necessary, the witch's familiar) rules when resolving the stack.
We also know from the animal companion rules that "any" isn't an absolute - this is the druid/cavalier case.
"The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics"; yet, a druid 5 / cavalier 5 has a 10th level companion if and only if that companion is a mount. Otherwise, she has one 5th level non-mount companion, and one 5th level mount.
Similarly, if the druid/cavalier archetypes out of nature's bond or chooses a domain or herbalism, she'd only have a 5th level mount from cavalier (not 10th, as such a druid isn't entitled to a companion.)
And thus, similarly, the arcane sorcerer and tattooed sorcerer would not stack familiar levels with a wizard that archetypes out of arcane bond. (And, by rule, wouldn't even get a familiar if the wizard already has an item bond.)
convincing us(which you won't because your wrong) won't convince your GM to allow it, sorry.Furthermore, removing the ANY, is not reading it by RAW. And assuming the ANY is only there is make it grammatically better than using 'a' or 'an' or 'a wizard entitled to having a familiar' is moving into RAI territory.
Take 'any wizard' as it's own statement.
Which classes am I allowed to play?
Any wizard.
So, (insert archetype here) wizard?
No, obviously I meant only a basic non archetyped wizard because I said 'any wizard' and you should have understood that to mean 'a wizard' by which I meant ONLY A BASIC WIZARD.
That's just not how English works.
I'm not the OP, so this debate means nothing to me personally.
I was arguing the pure RAW of reading it vs the RAI of it.
I already stated earlier that I would rule that it wouldn't stack, I was merely making the case for reading it 100% RAW.
Also, "you're", not your.
Reading it 100% raw still says it doesn’t increase the power of your familiar... the levels stack when determining the power and abilities of your familiar... easiest way to break it down is through looking at the issue as a math problem.
Tattooed sorcerer grants + 1/2 level to familiar at each level. Standard witch/wizard also grants + 1/2 level to familiar at each level. Archetypes that trade away the familiar grant + 0 level to familiar at each level.
Tattooed sorcerer 5 + standard wizard 5 = (5x0.5) + (5x0.5) = 5... your familiar advances 5 times and its scaling abilities (if any) function as a 10th level wizard’s familiar.
Tattooed sorcerer 5 + familiarless wizard 5 = (5x0.5) + (5x0) = 2.5 ... your familiar only has 2.5 advancements on the familiar table and it’s abilities function as a 5th level wizard’s familiar.
The levels still stack, it is just that stacking a zero improvement on anything is still a zero improvement no matter how many times you stack it. Ten times zero is still zero. It doesn’t let you ignore the fact that your archetypes wizard doesn’t have a familiar and as such provides a net zero improvement to familiars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately it comes down to this, if you believe the text of the ability that calls back to the other rules as a reminder, then it doesn't stack. If you think it is intended to be it's own rule then it will stack because the specific rule trumps general rules.
Nope, because if you follow the actual grammar rules as strictly as you're following the "RAW IS TEH BESTEST" code then that's not what it actually says.
Here's the link again for those who missed it: LINK
If you read the sentence “ Her sorcerer levels stack with any wizard or witch levels she possesses when determining the powers of her familiar—this ability does not allow her to have both a familiar and a bonded item.” as an archetype specific rule that replaces the general stacking rules then RAW yes “any” wizard or witch levels will stack with tattooed sorcerer. However this rules element is also exclusionary as well. As no other classes are listed as stacking with tattooed sorcerer then any wizard and witch levels would stack and NO OTHER eligible classes would. The specific trumps general knife cuts both ways here IMO. This being said that is not the interpretation I would go with. I would chose to use the general rule in this case were I the GM making the call.
Ultimately it comes down to this, if you believe the text of the ability that calls back to the other rules as a reminder, then it doesn't stack. If you think it is intended to be it's own rule then it will stack because the specific rule trumps general rules.
This is true.
We should then additionally remember that things are the same unless they explicitly tell us they are different.
eg Channel energy, channel positive energy, and channel are all the same ability (assuming a good aligned cleric for 'channel energy').
Given there is nothing in the tatoo sorcerer text that calls it out specifically as being different from the general familiar stacking rules, then we should use the general familiar stacking rules.
Regarding it referencing only witch/wizard and not other arcane casters that can get familiars - I haven't check the timeline of printings, but I'd venture wizard and witch were the only two familiarable classes at the time of the writing of the archetype. If that is indeed true there is no reason to believe it wouldn't extend to other familiarable classes printed at a later date - just like rules for spontaneous casters printed in the CRB also apply to Oracles and other spontanenous casters created at later dates - even though those CRB rules explicitly call out bards/sorcerers.
As I posted earlier I said if the the specific rule mentioned “replaces” not modifies the general rule then this would be the case. Depending on how specific you are interpreting this rule to be then an argument can be me made for the interpretation I gave. Again this is not the call I would make but some people may read it this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this seems to be going in circles... I’m going to point something out...
The general familiar rules don’t call out any specific rules on how to handle scaling of a familiar from a class other than wizard when stacked with levels of wizard that doesn’t take a familiar as their arcane bond. Now, we all know from various other class abilities and feats that you can’t have a bonded object and a familiar at the same time, but again, note that neither the familiars arcane bond nor the general familiar rules call this out, only those other specific familiar/bond granting abilities do.
If we were to read tattooed sorcerer as stacking with complete disregard to if you are getting a familiar or not from your wizard/witch levels then we would also have to do the same for someone Multiclassing witch/wizard with a bonded object from wizard... which is clearly not how it works...
This goes back to what I was pointing out in my first post in their thread... when you stack class levels for the purpose of determining an ability, you don’t ignore a slower rate of progression from one class if present. In the case of a familiarless wizard, that is a slower rate of progression granting +0 at each level.
To put things simple... when stacking you total the progression of the ability from each class and add it together, you DO NOT total the class levels and then compare to the progression chart. Totaling class levels first would allow you to pick and choose between different progression rates when present, which is not permissible... you only total levels first when an ability says “levels in X class count as levels in Y class for the purpose of this or that ability”...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It stacks with wizard levels when determining the powers of her familiar, which means we look at how the wizard levels determin(s) the powers of her familiar. If the wizard doesn't advance the powers of her familiar then giving +0 to the familiar's power is still stacking them by Rules As Written.
I understand what you're saying, you've been repeating it.
But no, I don't think the rules text is reminder text. I do think that the reason you're only reading it one of 2 ways. There's a third way to read it that you're missing.
I understand what you're saying, you've been repeating it.
But no, I don't think the rules text is reminder text. I do think that the reason you're only reading it one of 2 ways. There's a third way to read it that you're missing.
Okay, one way is that it is reminder text and you should see the full rules of familiar stacking to determine how it stacks.
Way number two is that it is rules text in and of itself, and trumps the general rules.
What is the third possibility?
It's the same as number 2, but you follow the english grammar rules as strictly as you seem to be following RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, then, an exercise.
Druid 5 / ranger 5.
This is the character's druid level. The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.
Is this companion 10th level?
No. The first three ranger levels count as zero for AC stacking, so 7th.
The same goes for familiars and archetype wizards. Those exploiter levels stack as zero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you need to brush up on your grammar then.
Essentially what I'm saying is that there are grammatical rules here that YOU need to brush up on. This isn't conversational grammar, it's formal grammar. I tried to explain it earlier, but unfortunatly while my grammatical education extends far enough recognise this I don't have the vocabulary to explain it properly.
If this were just conversational grammar then you would most likely be correct. However if you're going to use conversational grammar it seems pretty clear that the intent of the author was to allow classes with familiars to stack (like the normal rules). Applying strict RAW without applying strict grammar is basically just applying the rules to the parts you like.