Warlocks & Familiars...

[Silveras]

I think the previous poster was making the point that a single feat will outperform the class ability when it comes to taking arcane castings PrCs that don't advance your familiar (which is virtually all of them).

As a random example, a Bard 7/Incantatrix 3 WITH the feat would have a familiar caster level of 10, whereas a Wizard 7/Incantatrix 3 WITHOUT the feat would have a familiar caster level of only 7. One feat allows the bard to go from having no familiar to having a better familiar!

I think the previous poster was suggesting that it should be split into two feats to avoid this situation.

Your interpretation is correct. I have no objection to a feat that allows an arcane caster class that does not normally get a familiar to now obtain one. I also have no objection to a feat that allows class levels that would not normally stack for this purpose to now be combined. I *do*, however, object to one feat that does both.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Your interpretation is correct. I have no objection to a feat that allows an arcane caster class that does not normally get a familiar to now obtain one. I also have no objection to a feat that allows class levels that would not normally stack for this purpose to now be combined. I *do*, however, object to one feat that does both.

Either of the two feats that you suggest would be very, very low powered feats. I think combining the two makes for a workable feat.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Your interpretation is correct. I have no objection to a feat that allows an arcane caster class that does not normally get a familiar to now obtain one. I also have no objection to a feat that allows class levels that would not normally stack for this purpose to now be combined. I *do*, however, object to one feat that does both.

Considering the fact that the majority of players seem to view a familiar as more of a hindrance than anything else, why do you object to it, out of curiosity? Do you see it as a balance issue?

Personally, I could never see myself spending a feat to get a familiar, whether my levels stacked or not.

 

[Silveras]

Considering the fact that the majority of players seem to view a familiar as more of a hindrance than anything else, why do you object to it, out of curiosity? Do you see it as a balance issue?

Personally, I could never see myself spending a feat to get a familiar, whether my levels stacked or not.

In most cases, either a class has a feature that "works just like the XXX feat", or the Feat "works like the XXX class ability". I can't, at the moment, think of another instance where a Feat modeled on a class ability is actually superior.

I do not see a familiar as a liabilty, but I recognize that such depends a lot on the campaign. In a campaign where the arcane caster has a) a familiar and b) a PrC that does not grant the familiar advancement, this feat becomes a no-brainer (otherwise, the familiar *does* become a liability).

In general, I would be a lot happier if the book simply included a rule change that "all classes that grant arcane spellcasting levels stack for purposes of familiar abilities". Alternatively, if the feat simply enabled one class to act as if it granted the familiar class feature (and so stacked with other classes that gave familiar advancement that way), I'd be more agreeable to that, too.

 

[ThoughtfulOwl]

In most cases, either a class has a feature that "works just like the XXX feat", or the Feat "works like the XXX class ability". I can't, at the moment, think of another instance where a Feat modeled on a class ability is actually superior.

I do not see a familiar as a liabilty, but I recognize that such depends a lot on the campaign. In a campaign where the arcane caster has a) a familiar and b) a PrC that does not grant the familiar advancement, this feat becomes a no-brainer (otherwise, the familiar *does* become a liability).

In general, I would be a lot happier if the book simply included a rule change that "all classes that grant arcane spellcasting levels stack for purposes of familiar abilities". Alternatively, if the feat simply enabled one class to act as if it granted the familiar class feature (and so stacked with other classes that gave familiar advancement that way), I'd be more agreeable to that, too.

I stand corrected about the warlock; however I would like to point out that having one's levels stack for the purpose of getting the familiar isn't a separate feature: it's part and parcel of having a familiar.

Anyway, I agree with other posters that a familiar wouldn't be worth two feats, especially for classes that do not have feats to spare.

I'll pick up your original point:

My real objection to the feat is that it is clearly BETTER than the standard class ability it is designed to emulate, since you get that ability PLUS the ability to stack class levels that would not otherwise stack.

The weakness of this argument is that there is no guarantee that any class feature is designed to be more powerful than a feat; at which point, a feat granting a class feature that is weaker than what a feat is worth should grant something more, otherwise it becomes suboptimal.

Of course, it's open to discussion how much a familiar is worth compared to a feat; but consider this: if sorcerers and wizards had the option to dump the familiar in exchange for a bonus feat, how many would keep the familiar for reasons other than pure flavor?

 

[UltimaGabe]

In most cases, either a class has a feature that "works just like the XXX feat", or the Feat "works like the XXX class ability". I can't, at the moment, think of another instance where a Feat modeled on a class ability is actually superior.

I can think of one. Ever play a Ranger?

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I assume you are referring to the ranger's combat path virtual feats? If so, they are clearly better than the actual feats, as they have no requirements.

 

[Jalkain]

In general, I would be a lot happier if the book simply included a rule change that "all classes that grant arcane spellcasting levels stack for purposes of familiar abilities". Alternatively, if the feat simply enabled one class to act as if it granted the familiar class feature (and so stacked with other classes that gave familiar advancement that way), I'd be more agreeable to that, too.

It's not a bad idea, but for one problem. From a purely rules perspective (i.e. ignoring roleplaying), the only things to stop wizards taking 1 level/level arcane prestige classes instead of wizard levels (apart from pre-reqs) are:

- The extra wizard feats

- The familiar progression

So pure wizard characters would only have the feats left, and seeing as you can get feats from many PrCs, you aren't left with much advantage at all. You can argue about how much a familiar is worth, but at least it's an option which is desirable to some characters in some campaigns.


Edit: just to clarify, I was talking about the first suggestion above. I meant to add that the second idea actually solves the problem very neatly, and I feel it makes much more sense than the original feat.

 

[Silveras]

I can think of one. Ever play a Ranger?

If you mean the virtual feats, they are examples of what I am talking about. They grant the feat. Period. Not the feat + something else. I view them as a feat with alternate requirements - you must be a Ranger and must be in light armor.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's not a bad idea, but for one problem. From a purely rules perspective (i.e. ignoring roleplaying), the only things to stop wizards taking 1 level/level arcane prestige classes instead of wizard levels (apart from pre-reqs) are:

- The extra wizard feats

- The familiar progression

So pure wizard characters would only have the feats left, and seeing as you can get feats from many PrCs, you aren't left with much advantage at all. You can argue about how much a familiar is worth, but at least it's an option which is desirable to some characters in some campaigns.

A 7th level wizard's (or sorceror's) familiar has all the abilities that are ever going to make a difference in the game. Beyond that, the only abilities are a dismal spell resistance (that an equal CR opponent without any SR-defeating tactics will need a 5 or better to defeat), the ability to cast a spell on it once per day (scry) and some intelligence.

Which all adds up to a big pile of nothing. I would never take this feat for my wizard/loremaster, and I make extensive use of my familiar.