Controversy over Obtain Familiar

[Quickboots]

I am trying out a Warmage/Wizard/Ultimate Magus/Abjurant Champion and wanted to take the Obtain Familiar feat from Complete Arcane. The way that I read the feat and the way that I have heard it discussed in many places, is that it would allow all of those classes to stack for purposes of determining my familiars abilities.

My DM claims this is not the case and will not be swayed until I can show him an NPC stat block that uses the feat as I feel it works. Exact words

" If you can find an NPC with a stat block that supports your interpretation (or any other hard evidence), then by all means bring it to my attention. I don't think you will though "

His argument:

"Specifically, such classes do not directly allow you to cast Arcane spells. They only improve your ability in an existing class that allows such casting. You are exactly correct that such classes allow casting to progress but this is not the same as allowing casting itself. Yes, it's a fine distinction, but the game is built around fine distinctions."

Am I just being crazy here or is my DM correct?? It's a small thing that I want as far as the concept of the character as a whole so I have already just dropped the issue out of frustration. But its a bit of fluff that I kinda wanted to add.

[HunterOfJello]

Let me get this straight. Your DM is making a distinction over the word "Allow" and is saying that prestige classes that +1 to the existing arcane spellcasting class do not fall under the umbrella of "allowing" a PC to cast arcane spells?

That's one of the weirdest arguments I've heard a DM make.

The word "allow" is not some sort of highly specific descriptor in that description and is obviously not meant to be. The

Most people flock to the Obtain Familiar feat because it isn't based on class level, but rather all of the arcane spellcasting class and prestige classes that you take levels in. It's superior to the class feature for that very reason and costs a feat in return for the benefit.

~

Also, the demand to show a pre-built character from one of the books that uses the feat is highly reflective of someone who both doesn't understand how those prebuilt characters are built and how badly most of those prebuilt character are built. Prebuilt characters are one of the most commonly erred entries in all of the books and often seem to be double checked the least. They are also given almost exclusively feats from the PHB so that in order to understand their oversimplified builds, a person doesn't have to check out feats and abilities from 4+ different books.

A competent DM should honestly have the opposite opinion about prebuilt character builds. He/she should be highly suspicious of an ability working differently than they thought in a prebuilt character inside of one of the books. Prebuilt character builds in the WotC books are never to be trusted.
~

You might want to bring up more things and find out what other strange interpretations your DM has on word mincing.

I once let a player DM and he told everyone that ALL ranged attacks that miss a target have a chance to hit everyone next to that target (and not just on critical misses). After hitting allies with non-critical failures upon multiple occasions, everyone equivocally gave up on all ranged combat. He didn't last long in our group.

[Jeraa]

Warmage (Assuming you mean the class from Complete Arcane. I don't know of any other warmage however) does cast arcane spells. It has its own spells per day, and everything. It very well would stack with wizard levels when using Obtain Familiar (but not with a wizards normal familiar).

However, from Abjurant Champion:

Spellcasting: At each level, you gain new spells per day and an increase in caster level (and spells known, if applicable) as if you had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If you had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming an abjurant champion, you must decide to which class to add each level for the purpose of determining spells per day, caster level, and spells known.

It very clearly does not improve a wizards familiar, and as it does not have its own spellcasting (it only improves another classes spellcasting), it won't work with Obtain Familiar.

The same would apply to Ultimate Magus.

[Douglas]

Unfortunately, I think your DM is correct. It is indeed a very fine distinction, but it's a very important fine distinction - it's what prevents using, say, Loremaster or Archmage to advance Mystic Theurge.

Personally I'd allow it to work the way you want as a house rule, but if your DM wants to play by RAW for this he's made the right call.

[Jeraa]

A class that has "+1 to arcane spellecasting level" does not allow you to cast arcane spells, it only improves on your existing ability to cast arcane spells.

If you somehow got a level in a class that had "+1 to arcane casting level", and actually had no arcane casting level beforehand, then that ability is wasted. It doesn't spontaneously give you arcane spells to cast. Its not allowing you to cast arcane spells, only improving you already existing ability to do so.

[BowStreetRunner]

So the feat states "your levels in all classes that allow you to cast arcane spells stack" and your DM is arguing that prestige classes that advance casting don't actually 'allow' casting. (Sounds like "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0)" all over again.)

First of all, taking levels in Ultimate Magus and Abjurant Champion 'allow' you to cast spells that you could not cast just from your Warmage and Wizard levels. So when you are casting those 7th, 8th and 9th level arcane spells, ask your DM which classes are 'allowing' you to do that?

Secondly, a huge number of the NPC stat blocks are illegal builds anyway, so what is that going to prove?

[Thiyr]

I'd personally be of the opinion that such classes allow spellcasting (see the above for reasoning), but they do not GRANT spellcasting. As granting spellcasting is a common enough term used in ability descriptions, I'd say there's a difference here. For clarity, it may be easier to define both terms. A class which grants is the original source of an ability. A class which allows is synonymous with one which progresses or advances. Once that's squared away, the interpretation is a lot more obvious.

[HunterOfJello]

It very clearly does not improve a wizards familiar, and as it does not have its own spellcasting (it only improves another classes spellcasting), it won't work with Obtain Familiar.

The same would apply to Ultimate Magus.


Unfortunately, I think your DM is correct. It is indeed a very fine distinction, but it's a very important fine distinction - it's what prevents using, say, Loremaster or Archmage to advance Mystic Theurge.

Personally I'd allow it to work the way you want as a house rule, but if your DM wants to play by RAW for this he's made the right call.

There is a very big distinction in how leveling in a Prestige Classes improve class features versus what happens to feats when you level.

Prestige Classes almost unequivocally do not improve a Wizard's class feature Summon Familiar. That is stated obviously. However, a wizard's Summon Familiar class feature is completely different than taking the feat Obtain Familiar. Feats are not class features. Feats do not have the limitations and restrictions that class features do, nor do they have anything to do with prestige class' character advancement specifics.

It's almost the same comparison as the Animal Companion of a Druid and the Wild Cohort (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) feat. Whether a Druid Prestige class advances their animal companion's progression has absoutely nothing to do with the character's Wild Cohort progression. One is a feat, the other is a class feature.

~

The question in this case is a highly specific discrimination on the word "allow".

As mentioned above, if the entry said "grant" or "give", then I might take the opposite position. However, if a person takes Wizard 5/Fatespinner 2, then his two levels in Fatespinner allow him to cast more spells per day and 4th level spells. It wouldn't suddenlyg "give" or "grant" him arcane spellcasting, but it does allow it. It also doesn't "disallow" or "not allow" arcane spellcasting, which would be the other states of 'allowance' that a PrC could possibly give someone.

[Quickboots]

This sounds much like the debate between myself and my DM.

It seems both parties have their own arguments, and I was right in just dropping the issue because its not worth it.

[Ashtagon]

The potential difference the feat would make is a familiar with the bonuses associated with a L20 caster, and a familiar with the abilities associated with a L5-10 caster (depending on exact build).

Frankly, that sounds underpowered for a feat.

Your DM obviously believes that wizards can't have nice things. A decent familiar would obviously make for a broken character anyway.

[Quickboots]

lol. Maybe it's just me that can't have nice things.

You need to watch out for those familiars, one wrong step and they can ruin your entire campaign

[Blue Lantern]

There is a very big distinction in how leveling in a Prestige Classes improve class features versus what happens to feats when you level.

Prestige Classes almost unequivocally do not improve a Wizard's class feature Summon Familiar. That is stated obviously. However, a wizard's Summon Familiar class feature is completely different than taking the feat Obtain Familiar. Feats are not class features. Feats do not have the limitations and restrictions that class features do, nor do they have anything to do with prestige class' character advancement specifics.

It's almost the same comparison as the Animal Companion of a Druid and the Wild Cohort (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) feat. Whether a Druid Prestige class advances their animal companion's progression has absoutely nothing to do with the character's Wild Cohort progression. One is a feat, the other is a class feature.

~

The question in this case is a highly specific discrimination on the word "allow".

As mentioned above, if the entry said "grant" or "give", then I might take the opposite position. However, if a person takes Wizard 5/Fatespinner 2, then his two levels in Fatespinner allow him to cast more spells per day and 4th level spells. It wouldn't suddenlyg "give" or "grant" him arcane spellcasting, but it does allow it. It also doesn't "disallow" or "not allow" arcane spellcasting, which would be the other states of 'allowance' that a PrC could possibly give someone.

The fatespinner dos not allow the spellcasting, the wizard does and the PrC improves it, it is a fine distinction because virtually all PrC that improve casting have it as requirements but take for instance the Ruathar, it'is a PrC that improves spellcasting but not requires it to enter, if a Rogue or a Fighter were to enter the class would they be allowed to cast spells? And if they wer e to take the feat would gain the benfit?

[Sith_Happens]

The word "allow" is not some sort of highly specific descriptor in that description and is obviously not meant to be.

If this thread is any indication, though, then it definitely needs to be.:smallsigh:

As far as the whole "show me a prebuilt NPC who does it and then I'll believe you" idiocy, anyone care to point out some specific illegal NPC builds for the OP to show his DM?:smallwink:

[Telonius]

Something like a Bard/Sublime Chord with Obtain Familiar would give full abilities. Other PrCs that grant their own arcane spell lists (Assassin, Suel Arcanamach, etc) would stack with Wizard (or Bard, or Sorcerer, or Warmage, or Duskblade, or Beguiler, or any other arcane casting class I've forgotten) levels as well.

Quick and dirty summary: if it has its own spell list and spells per day table, it stacks for Obtain Familiar. If it has the phrase, "Beginning at x level, a (class name) gains the ability to cast a number of arcane spells," it stacks for obtain familiar. If instead it says, "When a new (class name) level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level ..." then it doesn't stack.

[Quickboots]

I'm rather surprised that the issue seems to have equal support on both sides. I was expecting a clean cut one way or the other.

If nothing else this has been enlightning, thanks all for the input

[Eldonauran]

Much to my chagrin, I find myself agreeing with the OP's DM and many others in this thread.

Reasoning: I agree that +1 to existing spellcasting does not make the prestige class a spellcasting class, only an existing table showing spells per day and a listed/referenced spell list.


Would I allow it anyway? Absolutely but would make sure to cap the 'effective wizard level' to the character's level to prevent shenanigans.

[Invader]

You could argue it this way:

If you're 10th level wizard you can cast 5th level spells, if then take a level in archmage it "allows" you to cast a 6th level spell.

I think it really comes down to semantics and how you want to argue what allow means.

[Sith_Happens]

I think it really comes down to semantics and how you want to argue what allow means.

You'd really think that the D&D team would have taken some hints from their coworkers over in the M:TG department. I'm pretty sure there's not a single word you'll find anywhere on a Magic card that isn't very specifically defined somewhere in the Comprehensive Rulebook.

[Quickboots]

I agree with Sith. It would be a bit of an undertaking but giving D&D a set of clearly defined language would make everything much simpler. And if they can do it with MTG they can do with with D&D

[BowStreetRunner]

I agree with Sith. It would be a bit of an undertaking but giving D&D a set of clearly defined language would make everything much simpler. And if they can do it with MTG they can do with with D&D

They may do it someday too, but not with 3.5 unfortunately. That will be in 5th or 6th at the very soonest.

[Tokuhara]

I'm sorry, but this has been forming a slight rash on my thoughts for a while:

Why all the hate for Familiars???

Look at this:

A familiar uses your skills to derive its skills, so....

If you have Use Magic Device, it has UMD
If it has hands, it can hold a wand
If it can talk, 2 spells/turn baby!!!

So Mr. Raven and Mr. Imp are my bestest best friends as a full caster since I can cast a Crowd Control spell while my Raven (let's call him Edgar) can cast a blasty spell and make the 4 or 5 baddies I gripped with my Evard's Black Tentacles REALLY start hurting.

[TuggyNE]

If it can talk, 2 spells/turn baby!!!

I'm not going to deal with most of this, but familiars have no spellcasting ability of their own, and so are entirely unable to cast any spells or use wands/scrolls without UMD. If you invest in UMD, sure, they'll pick it up, but that's generally suboptimal (spending money on every spell, without the money-saving features of say an Artificer), and does little to mitigate their fragility.

[Coidzor]

I'm rather surprised that the issue seems to have equal support on both sides. I was expecting a clean cut one way or the other.

As am I. I've never run into this point of contention here before. It's always been taken as established that obtain familiar is flat out better than the basic familiar that wizards and sorcerers get because it mixes with PrCing out.

[Garwain]

In my opinion it's really straightforward. Prestige classes advance your spellcasting. I don't know where you got the idea that they 'allow' anything more than that. In fact, the argument from your you quoted is spot on RAW.

OTOH, asking for NPC statblocks is about the dumbest thing to support raw as they are filled with fail.

[Fitz10019]

I'm surprised the Playground can't come up with a fully-statted NPC from an official WotC module that can provide the example the OP needs. Maybe we can steer this discussion in that direction?

[killem2]

I'm surprised the Playground can't come up with a fully-statted NPC from an official WotC module that can provide the example the OP needs. Maybe we can steer this discussion in that direction?

I've knocked out half the books so far in 3.5 by WOTC nothing yet :( still looking.

[Mystral]

I'd take a third option:

Warmage allows you to cast spells.

Abjurant champion allows you to cast spells.

Fighter allows you to cast spells. Rogue too. And Commoner.

As long as a class does not explicitly forbids you to cast spells, it allows you to cast them.

[NeedsAnswersNao]

We already specified how it works. RAW the boosting arcane classes add to their base class and therefore trigger the feat.

Looking for stat blocks (going against RAI book-writer assumptions) is not the solution, nor is strange interpretation finagling like the above.

[Greyfeld85]

I'm rather surprised that the issue seems to have equal support on both sides. I was expecting a clean cut one way or the other.

If nothing else this has been enlightning, thanks all for the input

The 50-50 split is because half the posters are stating how it does work, while the other half are stating how it should work. It's a very very fine distinction, but the DM in this case is actually correct.

However, if it makes you feel any better, I think most of us would agree with allowing PrCs to count toward the feat as a house rule. Because frankly, familiars are weak enough without forcing an underleveled one onto your character.