Rapid Summoning + Obtain Familiar Feat

[Verlock]

Hey guys, help me out here please. I'm having trouble with this question and I would like to know your thoughts about it:

Unearthed Arcana

Rapid Summoning (Ex): Any time a conjurer using this vari-
ant casts a summon monster spell, its casting time is 1 standard
action rather than 1 full round. (Creatures so summoned can
only take a standard action in the round they are summoned.)
Conjurers using this variant gain the normal benefi ts from en-
hancing a summon monster spell with the Quicken Spell feat. A conjurer using this variant permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar.

The question is: this permanently excludes the option to get the feat obtain familiar from Complete Arcana? Probably yes, but I'd like more perspective about it.
If yes (I can get it), I'd probably use the other wizard variant which trades the bonus feat from wizard to fighter.

Thanks guys.

[noob]

Hey guys, help me out here please. I'm having trouble with this question and I would like to know your thoughts about it:

Unearthed Arcana

Rapid Summoning (Ex): Any time a conjurer using this vari-
ant casts a summon monster spell, its casting time is 1 standard
action rather than 1 full round. (Creatures so summoned can
only take a standard action in the round they are summoned.)
Conjurers using this variant gain the normal benefi ts from en-
hancing a summon monster spell with the Quicken Spell feat. A conjurer using this variant permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar.

The question is: this permanently excludes the option to get the feat obtain familiar from Complete Arcana? Probably yes, but I'd like more perspective about it.
If yes (I can get it), I'd probably use the other wizard variant which trades the bonus feat from wizard to fighter.

Thanks guys.
You can use both variants since they trade away different things.
But it makes sense to say that obtain familiar would not work.

[Elkad]

You give up the ability to gain a familiar.

Then you buy it back with a feat, except better.

Unless you are in some strange build that is absolutely starved for feats, you always give your familiar away, and then buy it back.

[Andezzar]

RAW is clear, such a character cannot ever obtain a familiar. The Summon Familiar class feature does not give the character a familiar, just the ability to obtain one. So at the start of the game a character does not have a familiar, just the ability to obtain one. The Rapid Summoning ACF unfortunately does not remove the Summon familiar class feature but the ability that the class feature and other things grant. So it does not matter how the character later gains that ability (Feat, level in Sorcerer etc.) he still cannot use it.

I however doubt that the writer had that in mind so talk with your DM.

[Bullet06320]

if your going for a summoning build, rapid summoning is a must have
getting you critters in play asap is a priority


RAW is clear, such a character cannot ever obtain a familiar. The Summon Familiar class feature does not give the character a familiar, just the ability to obtain one. So at the start of the game a character does not have a familiar, just the ability to obtain one. The Rapid Summoning ACF unfortunately does not remove the Summon familiar class feature but the ability that the class feature and other things grant. So it does not matter how the character later gains that ability (Feat, level in Sorcerer etc.) he still cannot use it.

I however doubt that the writer had that in mind so talk with your DM.

RAW vs RAI, I don't see any issue with gaining a familiar later from a different source

[PrismCat21]

Most people believe taking Obtain Familiar will still allow you to get another Familiar. I do not.
I always saw "permanently giving up the ability to obtain a Familiar" meant that you could never again get one, period.

I think it's reasonable to allow Obtain Familiar to work since it's already costing you a Feat, the most precious resource in the game. And to get a decent Familiar you need to take another Feat anyway, Improved Familiar.
.
It doesn't work, but can reasonably be allowed.

[Efrate]

Boost your cl to take obtain familiar first, then give up the ability to obtain which would not matter since you already had it? Not sure the order you must do stuff in but you generally apply most stuff in the most beneficial order. It's really sketchy.

[Andezzar]

Boost your cl to take obtain familiar first, then give up the ability to obtain which would not matter since you already had it? Not sure the order you must do stuff in but you generally apply most stuff in the most beneficial order. It's really sketchy.This only works if you have CL 3 in a class other than the variant Conjurer as you have to have the familiar before taking the first level in the variant Conjurer. The most beneficial order can only be chosen if two effects happen at the same time.

[Troacctid]

It specifically gives up the class ability to summon a familiar.

"Each variant specialist class gives up one of the standard specialists class abilities in exchange for a new ability unique to the variant specialist."

[Andezzar]

Generally this is true, however the Rapid Summoning variant specifically says otherwise. I agree that the intention is to only remove the Summon Familiar class ability, but unfortunately the rules say otherwise.

[Psyren]

Quite frankly, a familiar has lots of uses, but your summons going off in the same round is pretty useful too. Even if your DM goes with this ruling I would say that faster summons might be worth it. Especially since, in 3.5., you can't quicken summoning at all unless you reduce the casting time below a round somehow.

[Crake]

It says a conjurer permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar. That means you can never gain a familiar by virtue of being a conjurer. A conjurer who multiclassed into sorcerer would still get a familiar, by virtue of being a sorcerer, so I would say you could also get a familiar from the obtain familiar feat, however, I would probably say that you could not use your conjurer caster level to qualify or scale your familiar based on the text. If you had a CL from something else, like, innate SLAs or another class, I would say you could.

[Andezzar]

It says a conjurer permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar.Yes.


That means you can never gain a familiar by virtue of being a conjurer.No. A multiclass conjurer/sorcerer is a conjurer (and a sorcerer), so he loses the ability. There is no rule saying the character only loses this ability granted by the sorcerer class, the rule plainly states he loses the ability poermanently and does not restrict the source.


A conjurer who multiclassed into sorcerer would still get a familiar, by virtue of being a sorcerer,No again, a sorcerer whether multiclassed or not does not get a familiar the class merely grants him the ability to create one. Whether he uses this ability is up to him, unless he has permanently given up that ability.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Taken within the context of this is a Wizard alternate class feature, the sentence "A conjurer using this variant permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar," is referring to just the Wizard obtain familiar class feature, which he permanently gives up. This alternate class feature does not affect any other class but Wizard, it doesn't affect any feats you gain, it doesn't prevent the character as a whole from ever gaining a familiar. It just permanently sacrifices your Wizard obtain familiar class feature for this alternate Wizard class feature.

In any case you should just ask your DM, but given the context of an alternate class feature, all of the ACFs definitely only apply to class features gained from just the one class.

[Jay R]

As this discussion shows, it can be read either way by intelligent, reasoning people.

So ask your DM. Nobody else's opinion will affect anything.

[lylsyly]

As this discussion shows, it can be read either way by intelligent, reasoning people.

So ask your DM. Nobody else's opinion will affect anything.

And your DMs opinion is the only one that matters.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the Feat or getting one from a different class later is okay. However, I also agree with Crake in that I would not allow your Conjurer levels to count for improving your familiar.

[heavyfuel]

The familiar granted by the "Obtain Familiar" feat is strictly better than the one the "Summon Familiar" class feature Wizards get. Since it uses caster level instead of Wizard levels, it means you can multiclass or go prestige without losing the familiar progression.

Also, Rapid Summoning is better than literally any feat if you want to summon as a standard action, because no feat in the game lets you summon as a standard action (this includes Rapid Spell).

This makes the trade very much in favor of Rapid Summoning, even if you're never allowed to get a familiar ever. You're trading a class feature worse than a feat for a class feature many many times better than a feat. Because of this (and because it's RAW), I wouldn't let the character benefit from the Obtain Familiar feat.

[Troacctid]

Because of this (and because it's RAW), I wouldn't let the character benefit from the Obtain Familiar feat.
Really not seeing how it's RAW here, given how specific the text is that the thing it's giving up is the class feature from the Conjurer class. Again, the quote:

Each variant specialist class gives up one of the standard specialists class abilities in exchange for a new ability unique to the variant specialist. Each specialist class has three variants: one that replaces the specialist's summon familiar ability, one that replaces the specialist's bonus feats, and one that replaces the specialist's bonus spell per day from the specialty school.
It seems pretty clear to me that it simply gives up the summon familiar ability from your class.

[Elkad]

The familiar granted by the "Obtain Familiar" feat is strictly better than the one the "Summon Familiar" class feature Wizards get. Since it uses caster level instead of Wizard levels, it means you can multiclass or go prestige without losing the familiar progression.

Also, Rapid Summoning is better than literally any feat if you want to summon as a standard action, because no feat in the game lets you summon as a standard action (this includes Rapid Spell).

This makes the trade very much in favor of Rapid Summoning, even if you're never allowed to get a familiar ever. You're trading a class feature worse than a feat for a class feature many many times better than a feat. Because of this (and because it's RAW), I wouldn't let the character benefit from the Obtain Familiar feat.

If you think a familiar is worse than a feat, why would you object to a player using a feat on it? Wouldn't he be making his character weaker?

[heavyfuel]

Really not seeing how it's RAW here, given how specific the text is that the thing it's giving up is the class feature from the Conjurer class.

Specific trumps general. Normally you'd be correct, but the Conjurer specifically loses the ability to obtain a familiar forever. While I normally don't apply things I consider stupid RAW, maybe the designers actually had some nice insight for a change


If you think a familiar is worse than a feat, why would you object to a player using a feat on it? Wouldn't he be making his character weaker?

I never said that. I said that familiars from the "Summon Familiar" class feature are worse than familiars from the "Obtain Familiar" feat, not that familiars are worse than a feat. A familiar is only worse than a feat if the familiar was obtained though the class feature, if obtained through the feat, it's worth exactly one feat, not less.

A Familar is a very strong asset, but summoning as a standard action is "lets completely break the action economy without any counterplay" levels of strong.

[Nifft]

D&D runs on imagination and "you know what I mean bro", both in liberal quantities.

The RAW would seem to indicate that a Conjurer who took Rapid Summoning was forever locked out of having a Familiar.

Probably that text was written before ACFs had somewhat standardized language and concepts -- much like how each DMG prestige class has different spell progression text -- and they were trying to write an ACF, rather than a permanent injunction.

Luckily, the players aren't strictly bound by RAW, and the DM can inject a suitable quantity of "you know what I mean bro" to accommodate the proto-ACF into the framework of all other ACFs, and proceed to ban Conjurers entirely look at Abrupt Jaunt holy cow what were they even thinking-- er, I mean, proceed to treat Rapid Summoning like any other ACF which costs your class Familiar, and which can be bought back with a feat.

[Troacctid]

Specific trumps general. Normally you'd be correct, but the Conjurer specifically loses the ability to obtain a familiar forever. While I normally don't apply things I consider stupid RAW, maybe the designers actually had some nice insight for a change
The ability to summon a familiar...okay, where does that ability come from? Right, from the Conjurer class. So, in other words, you permanently give up that class ability, exactly as the intro section says.

Now you don't have the ability to summon a familiar (because you lost it). If only there were some way to gain that ability again...aha, wait, there is this lovely feat that gives you back that ability!

[Psyren]

The ability to summon a familiar...okay, where does that ability come from? Right, from the Conjurer class. So, in other words, you permanently give up that class ability, exactly as the intro section says.

Now you don't have the ability to summon a familiar (because you lost it). If only there were some way to gain that ability again...aha, wait, there is this lovely feat that gives you back that ability!

But you are still a conjurer with the ACF that still says a conjurer cannot ever have a familiar. It doesn't specify that the familiar it is banning has to be the one you got from conjurer.

I can't speak for whether this was intended or not (and your GM gets the final say anyway) but I can't fault heavyfuel's reasoning.

[Troacctid]

But you are still a conjurer with the ACF that still says a conjurer cannot ever have a familiar. It doesn't specify that the familiar it is banning has to be the one you got from conjurer.

I can't speak for whether this was intended or not (and your GM gets the final say anyway) but I can't fault heavyfuel's reasoning.
No, you're a conjurer with an ACF that says you cannot ever use the conjurer class ability to summon a familiar. "The ability to summon a familiar" refers to a specific familiar-summoning ability, not all familiar-summoning abilities. This is clarified in the text.

[Celestia]

Does the ranger ACF that gives up spellcasting prevent you from casting spells of any class? Does the barbarian ACF that gives up fast movemany prevent you from gaining all faster forms of movement? Does the fighter ACF that gives up bonus feats eliminate all your bonus feats? No. Of course not. An ACF that trades away a class feature only sacrifices that one class feature. Any other interpretation is dumb.

Declaring that wizards with rapid summoning cannot ever obtain a familiar due to poor word choice is no different than declaring that drown healing is legitimate for the exact same reason. This game was written by normal people for normal people. If you want to obsess over exact word choice, go become a lawyer.

[Vizzerdrix]

So wait, Im cponfused. does this mean conjurers can`t use the summon monster line to get mephits? What about anything else on both the summon and imporved familiar lists? :smallconfused:

[heavyfuel]

Does the ranger ACF that gives up spellcasting prevent you from casting spells of any class? Does the barbarian ACF that gives up fast movemany prevent you from gaining all faster forms of movement? Does the fighter ACF that gives up bonus feats eliminate all your bonus feats? No. Of course not.

I'm AFB, so tell me something. Does the Ranger ACF say you permanently lose the ability to cast spells? Does the barbarian ACF say you permanently lose the ability to increase your movement speed? Does the fighter ACF say you permanently lose the ability to gain bonus feats?

It's an honest question because, like I said, I'm AFB. But from memory I don't think they do. The Conjurer's ACF, however, does say you permanently lose the ability to obtain a familiar

[heavyfuel]

So wait, Im cponfused. does this mean conjurers can`t use the summon monster line to get mephits? What about anything else on both the summon and imporved familiar lists? :smallconfused:

No. Ravens aren't familiars. Some familiars are ravens, but ravens aren't familiars. Same goes for other creatures on the (improved) familiar list

[Troacctid]

Does the fighter ACF say you permanently lose the ability to gain bonus feats?
Actually, yes. And the Ranger ability says you must sacrifice your spellcasting ability. Neither one specifically calls out the class in question.

[heavyfuel]

Actually, yes. And the Ranger ability says you must sacrifice your spellcasting ability. Neither one specifically calls out the class in question.

It the Fighter one says so, then sure, you can't gain bonus feats by raw. I'd be inclined to forget about this rule because fighters need all the help they can get, but the RAW seems pretty clear then.

The Ranger ACF isn't so clean cut. Just because you sacrifice something it doesn't mean you can't get it back. Though a Ranger that had levels in a spellcasting class before taking levels in Ranger would definitely lose that spellcasting

[Troacctid]

Sure, if you ignore the headers that clarify that it swaps away a class feature.

[heavyfuel]

Sure, if you ignore the headers that clarify that it swaps away a class feature.

Dunno. I'm making my arguments based on your post about these classes. I might change my opinion on thr RAW when I get home and actually get to see the books

[Psyren]

No, you're a conjurer with an ACF that says you cannot ever use the conjurer class ability to summon a familiar. "The ability to summon a familiar" refers to a specific familiar-summoning ability, not all familiar-summoning abilities. This is clarified in the text.

The exact line is quoted in this very thread: "permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar." Are you actually arguing that Obtain Familiar does not in fact let you obtain a familiar? :smallconfused:

[Bullet06320]

Specialist Wizard Variants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm)

Because magic plays such an important role in the game, the wizard class offers great opportunities for change when designing a campaign or a character. The following variants present different versions of the standard specialist wizards. Each variant specialist class gives up one of the standard specialists class abilities in exchange for a new ability unique to the variant specialist. Each specialist class has three variants: one that replaces the specialist's summon familiar ability, one that replaces the specialist's bonus feats, and one that replaces the specialist's bonus spell per day from the specialty school.

A conjurer using this variant permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar.

all the other variants have the same wording

its specifically calling out the class feature
now the way its worded.... could be read never allowing a familiar from any source
that being said, I have no issue allowing a familiar from a different source, such as a different class or a feat
goes back to RAW vs RAI, I think it was only intended to remove the class feature
DM call territory on how its interpreted at each individual table

[Troacctid]

The exact line is quoted in this very thread: "permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar." Are you actually arguing that Obtain Familiar does not in fact let you obtain a familiar? :smallconfused:
You give up your wizard ability to obtain a familiar. Then you gain a different ability that allows you to obtain a familiar. Bam, you can summon a familiar again.

[Psyren]

It depends on whether "the ability" refers to the specific one the conjurer gives you, or the more general ability/possibility of ever having one regardless of source.

I would be more inclined to agree with your reading (the former) if it said "the wizard ability" like you used, but it doesn't have that specificity. I might allow it, but (in keeping with heavyfuel and Nifft's posts) I would probably use it to leverage additional balance concessions out of the conjurer player in exchange.

[Troacctid]

It depends on whether "the ability" refers to the specific one the conjurer gives you, or the more general ability/possibility of ever having one regardless of source.

I would be more inclined to agree with your reading (the former) if it said "the wizard ability" like you used, but it doesn't have that specificity. I might allow it, but (in keeping with heavyfuel and Nifft's posts) I would probably use it to leverage additional balance concessions out of the conjurer player in exchange.
It does say that. It's clarified in the intro section.

[Nifft]

It does say that. It's clarified in the intro section.

A conflict between general and specific could be forced by willful misinterpretation.

At that point, the more specific non-intro section would win.

But that'd require willful misinterpretation.

[animewatcha]

If I remember right, there were monk and fighter ACFs that had the permanant language in regards to give up things. Except their permanents extended out to other classes and ways to gain it and specifically said so. For monk believe halfling monk and evasion-line, fighter was the hit-and-run.

[Jay R]

As we continue to demonstrate, rules that were written over many years, by many writers, and never considered as a whole, will often make it possible for different people to reach different conclusions.

I repeat: ask your own DM. His or her opinion matters; the opinions of people on this thread do not.

[Segev]

I can appreciate and understand the reading of the RAW that says "permanent means permanent." But we have a problem of precedence and primacy. Sure, the conjurer variant says they permanently give that ability up. But the feat says they gain that ability back. Neither is more specific nor more general, so that usual measure doesn't help resolve this conflict.

But we do have order of operations.

If the character takes Obtain Familiar as, say, a level 3 Warlock, then, at level 4, becomes a conjurer and takes that special feature, he permanently gives up all extant familiar-obtaining powers.

But if he takes the Conjurer variant, then picks up Obtain Familiar (or any other class that grants the ability to obtain one), he gave it up, but now has gained a rule that says he gets it again.

This has to be how it applies, because otherwise, there could be no rules which ever change rules put in place earlier in a build. We couldn't have feats or class features which allow Arcane casting in armor with lower or no arcane spell failure chance, because the rules which provide the alteration would not be allowed to override the rules which they're altering.



Obviously, the real answer is, "Ask your DM," but I think to maintain sensible RAW-reading throughout our rules discussions, it must be possible for Obtain Familiar to alter the "permanent" nature of having given up an opportunity for a familiar.

[Andezzar]

This has to be how it applies, because otherwise, there could be no rules which ever change rules put in place earlier in a build. We couldn't have feats or class features which allow Arcane casting in armor with lower or no arcane spell failure chance, because the rules which provide the alteration would not be allowed to override the rules which they're altering.I do not agree with that deduction, especially in the example you gave. The standard rules for arcane casting in armour do not state that he permanently must have an ASF of [percentage listed in armour description] or that he permanently gives up the ability to cast in armour without spell failure. The ASF rule is applied to him. Certain abilities can be added onto that without interacting with the standard rule. The net ASF will then just be different.

The point is that there are very few rules that outright forbid certain behaviour. The rule for the rapid summoning conjurer is one of those. Neither the wizard class feature nor the feat actually produces a familiar directly. They merely grant the potential for obtaining one, and the act of obtaining one is permanently forbidden for a RS conjurer. So the character could select the feat but could never use it. On the other hand if a character were to select the feat without being a RS conjurer (e.g. bard 3), he could create a familiar and have all RS conjurer levels acquired later improve the familiar, as the rule only removes the ability to obtain a familiar, not the one to improve it.

[Troacctid]

"Permanently" doesn't carry any rules weight here. That's just the default for ACFs. It's not like the Thug's extra skill points or the Domain Wizard's extra spells are only temporary.

[Segev]

The point is that there are very few rules that outright forbid certain behaviour. The rule for the rapid summoning conjurer is one of those. Neither the wizard class feature nor the feat actually produces a familiar directly. They merely grant the potential for obtaining one, and the act of obtaining one is permanently forbidden for a RS conjurer. So the character could select the feat but could never use it. On the other hand if a character were to select the feat without being a RS conjurer (e.g. bard 3), he could create a familiar and have all RS conjurer levels acquired later improve the familiar, as the rule only removes the ability to obtain a familiar, not the one to improve it.

Fair. Let's try this analogy, then: the core RAW (which most people ignore, for good reason) state that abandoning your monk training to multiclass means you can't go back. There are PrCs which specify that you can return to monk training after them. If we assume that the weight of permanently giving up the ability to do X means no rule Y can restore ability X, then these PrCs have rules that do nothing.


Again, though, this definitely falls into "ask your DM" territory, and I expect most DMs would allow it. You're spending a feat for a class feature, essentially, when the game has clearly marked the class feature as being worth a feat.

[heavyfuel]

Fair. Let's try this analogy, then: the core RAW (which most people ignore, for good reason) state that abandoning your monk training to multiclass means you can't go back. There are PrCs which specify that you can return to monk training after them. If we assume that the weight of permanently giving up the ability to do X means no rule Y can restore ability X, then these PrCs have rules that do nothing.

Yeah, but these PrCs explicitly acknowledge this fact about the monk. They create an exception to the exception, explicitly. There's no such language in the Obtain Familiar feat.


You're spending a feat for a class feature, essentially, when the game has clearly marked the class feature as being worth a feat.

I said this before, but the Summon Familiar class feature is worse than the Obtain Familiar feat, and the Rapid Summoning class feature is infinitely stronger than any feat in the game if summoning as a standard action is something you aim to do. It's not an even trade, not by a long shot.

[Segev]

Yeah, but these PrCs explicitly acknowledge this fact about the monk. They create an exception to the exception, explicitly. There's no such language in the Obtain Familiar feat.Irrelevant. The logic being used to say that "permanently gives up" means "so even if you have Obtain Familiar later, you can't," would apply equally to the PrCs. Either the text of a permissive item picked up later can override the text of a restrictive item picked up earlier, or it cannot. Otherwise, we start going down the rabbit hole of making sure every single exception is called out, and called out to the correct nth degree, lest we have to say THIS one didn't call out the RIGHT exception, and so doesn't actually do what it seems to say it does.


I said this before, but the Summon Familiar class feature is worse than the Obtain Familiar feat, and the Rapid Summoning class feature is infinitely stronger than any feat in the game if summoning as a standard action is something you aim to do. It's not an even trade, not by a long shot.

Not disputing the analysis. But the game has declared that:

1) Rapid Summoning is worth trading in the familiar.
2) Obtain Familiar is worth a feat.

If all you care about is having a familiar and having Rapid Summoning, trading your initial familiar for Rapid Summoning, and spending a feat on Obtain Familiar, yields you this.

If we really, really wanted to get silly with the RAW, a multiclassing character could get Obtain Familiar prior to entering Conjurer, and then trade Conjurer's familiar for Rapid Summoning, and even the reading of the RAW that started this discussion would not get rid of the already-extant familiar. It only says you give up the ability to acquire one, not to have one.

Don't let it die, or try to replace it, and you're fine!