Obtain Familiar: is it fixing a mistake?

[redking]

Obtain Familiar from Complete Arcane, p. 81.


You can obtain a familiar in the same manner as a sorcerer or wizard (see the sorcerer class description and the accompanying sidebar, page 52 of the Player's Handbook). As with a sorcerer or wizard, obtaining a familiar takes 24 hours and uses up magic materials worth 100 gp. For the purpose of determining familiar abilities that depend on your arcane caster class level, your levels in all classes that allow you to cast arcane spells stack.

Did WotC realize that familiars got a major nerf by not keying familiar abilities to all arcane spellcasting classes, and thus they came up with obtain familiar as a fix?

Obtain familiar seems like an essential pick for any PC that cares about its familiar. Thoughts?

[RandomPeasant]

I think it's just an oversight. If they meant to change that, they would have just changed it. As it is, Obtain Familiar creates a weird dynamic where your familiar is better if you're a Beguiler or Warlock who decides to pick one up rather than a Wizard or Sorcerer who gets one naturally.

[redking]

As it is, Obtain Familiar creates a weird dynamic where your familiar is better if you're a Beguiler or Warlock who decides to pick one up rather than a Wizard or Sorcerer who gets one naturally.

Doesn't taking obtain familiar fix up the problem for a wizard or sorcerer that takes the feat? I don't see that they are excluded from taking the feat.

[Tzardok]

Could someone please tell me how a beguiler who takes that feat has a better familiar than a normal sorcerer? From what I see both should be the same.

[ciopo]

to be nitpicky, PrC that advance casting aren't technically classes that allows you to cast arcane spells, so a beguiler X/PrC Y would have a familiar of X level, just like a wizard X/PrC Y would.
It would work with arcane PrC that have independent casting I suppose.

[StSword]

Could someone please tell me how a beguiler who takes that feat has a better familiar than a normal sorcerer? From what I see both should be the same.

Better hit points, since Beguilers have d6s. And Beguilers are better skill monkeys, so their familiars would also benefit on that level.

Familiars also gain the benefits of their master's BAB, so there might be a kitten with +20 BAB thanks to a duskblade taking obtain familiar in a game. :)

[Segev]

Familiars also gain the benefits of their master's BAB, so there might be a kitten with +20 BAB thanks to a duskblade taking obtain familiar in a game. :)

Mittens, Destroyer of Villages! No commoner is safe when adorable red paw-prints trail into their hovels!

[Tzardok]

Better hit points, since Beguilers have d6s. And Beguilers are better skill monkeys, so their familiars would also benefit on that level.

Familiars also gain the benefits of their master's BAB, so there might be a kitten with +20 BAB thanks to a duskblade taking obtain familiar in a game. :)

And... how does the sorcerer's familiar become better by taking the feat, as the OP sugested?

[Segev]

And... how does the sorcerer's familiar become better by taking the feat, as the OP sugested?

If the Sorcerer multiclasses - even into a PrC - the feat means he uses his HD to determine the familiar's stats, not his Sorcerer level. Most DMs I know house rule this without even realizing it's a house rule, though, because "your familiar levels up with you as you enter a PrC for your base class" is so obviously common sense to most DMs I know that they don't even realize the RAW technically say otherwise.

[Zanos]

I don't think it really matters that much. The only good abilities you'd lose from familiar progression if you multiclass is speak with master, which you can just buy a 600gp pearl of speech for and be done with it. The int adjustment doesn't really matter since the familiar has your skills anyway, although I guess maybe it would be better at using aid another on int skills to boost your own knowledge checks? The natural armor adjustment and spell resistance shouldn't matter because a familiar should not be in combat. Speak with animals of its kind is decent but super dependent on your DM and I haven't gotten much value out of it even when I did have it.

Deliver touch spells is okay, but you should get that anyway since you can't really prestige out before level 3, and you need to take serious precautions to avoid the death of your familiar if you plan to use it. It's usually permanently gone since you can't get another for a year and a day, and it bludgeons your XP total.

[ciopo]

The biggest loss of familiar not scaling when you enter PrCs is it's HD equivalent for the purpose of polymorph/shapechange, I think. Depending on how literal you interpret that singular "character level" when most other things about familiar says "master class level"

[arkol]

If the Sorcerer multiclasses - even into a PrC - the feat means he uses his HD to determine the familiar's stats, not his Sorcerer level. Most DMs I know house rule this without even realizing it's a house rule, though, because "your familiar levels up with you as you enter a PrC for your base class" is so obviously common sense to most DMs I know that they don't even realize the RAW technically say otherwise.

While I see the logic behind this, why should it be so? That means that prestige caster classes advance the spellcasting, the familiar plus whatever the prestige class already grants. It's like saying that a prestige class for rangers advances the favored enemy because it's a base ability granted by the original base class.

Going Prestige class should be about making choices, not having it all.

[RandomPeasant]

It seems pretty clear to me that "classes that allow you to cast arcane spells" includes PrCs that advance casting. If you are a 5th level Wizard and gain two levels of Incantatrix, those levels allowed you to cast 4th level spells.


Going Prestige class should be about making choices, not having it all.

In the context of 3.5 as written, the tradeoff of going into a PrC is that you don't go into a different PrC. I'm honestly fine with that, as the alternative is demanding that PrCs be balanced with the literal no new class features that Clerics and Sorcerers get after 1st level. Better that we accept that straight Cleric is bad than that we expand the sea of unplayable half-casting PrCs.


Doesn't taking obtain familiar fix up the problem for a wizard or sorcerer that takes the feat? I don't see that they are excluded from taking the feat.

They're not excluded from it, but it seems to me that if you spend a class feature and a feat to get something and get the same amount of that thing as the guy who spent just a feat to get it, you got a raw deal. If you're a Wizard, you're better off trading your familiar for something worth a feat then spending a feat getting a new familiar, rather than just spending that feat on something that's worth a feat directly. That's the kind of stupid accounting trickery that makes the game worse.

[Segev]

While I see the logic behind this, why should it be so? That means that prestige caster classes advance the spellcasting, the familiar plus whatever the prestige class already grants. It's like saying that a prestige class for rangers advances the favored enemy because it's a base ability granted by the original base class.

Going Prestige class should be about making choices, not having it all.

By the RAW, what you said should happen is what happens, unless they take the feat, which expressly makes the familiar count the PrC as well for level-based features. Thus, yes, the feat makes the sorcerer's familiar better.

[redking]

They're not excluded from it, but it seems to me that if you spend a class feature and a feat to get something and get the same amount of that thing as the guy who spent just a feat to get it, you got a raw deal. If you're a Wizard, you're better off trading your familiar for something worth a feat then spending a feat getting a new familiar, rather than just spending that feat on something that's worth a feat directly. That's the kind of stupid accounting trickery that makes the game worse.

I agree that it creates perverse incentives for players to metagame taking ACFs that drop summon familiar and take obtain familiar later on. That's unfortunate. Which is why I wonder if it was a mistake that obtain familiar was supposed to fix, but inadvertently made another part of the game breakdown (albeit, not severely).

[ciopo]

The strongest evidence I can think off that Prc that advance casting aren't casting classes themself, unless they have independent casting, is that you can't advance one such PrC with another different such PrC. If you make, say, a wizard 10 /abjurant champion 4 / archmage 4 , both abjurant champion and archmage are used to advance wizard, you aren't selecting "abjurant champion" as the class whose casting you're advancing with archmage. Because it doesn't have any casting. Such a character would have wizard spell slots only. If a PrC doesn't have a table of "spells known" and "spell slots", then it is not a spellcasting class. It may advance another class spellcasting, which is exactly what the feature says it does?

This reading also means there is no point in doing convoluted gimnastic with ACFing the class familiar away to then take Obtain familiar, because obtain familiar is exactly as good as familiar is, and do what it says on the tin.

I don't begrudge wanting those PrC to advance other spellcastery stuff like the familiar and whatnot, mind you, I'm just being nitpicky about the details.

[Zanos]

I agree that it creates perverse incentives for players to metagame taking ACFs that drop summon familiar and take obtain familiar later on. That's unfortunate. Which is why I wonder if it was a mistake that obtain familiar was supposed to fix, but inadvertently made another part of the game breakdown (albeit, not severely).
That isn't a free trade, you're losing a feat. In most cases, I don't think an ACF is worth a feat.

[redking]

That isn't a free trade, you're losing a feat. In most cases, I don't think an ACF is worth a feat.

Even when the feat in question is obtain familiar, and you are giving up a class feature that was going to be gimped because you intended to take PrCs that do not advance familiars?

Think of the alternative of the familiar loving sorcerer that doesn't intend to stay in the sorcerer class but wants real class features from PrCs. This sorcerer will take obtain familiar. Therefore, this sorcerer has nothing to lose by giving up its familiar for an ACF and taking obtain familiar, which it was going to take anyway. Effectively, it's metagamed.

[Zanos]

Even when the feat in question is obtain familiar, and you are giving up a class feature that was going to be gimped because you intended to take PrCs that do not advance familiars?
As I've already said, a familiar without advancement is hardly gimped.


Think of the alternative of the familiar loving sorcerer that doesn't intend to stay in the sorcerer class but wants real class features from PrCs. This sorcerer will take obtain familiar. Therefore, this sorcerer has nothing to lose by giving up its familiar for an ACF and taking obtain familiar, which it was going to take anyway. Effectively, it's metagamed.
I don't understand. Yes, if you want a familiar, obtain familiar is obviously a good feat. But you're still spending a feat vs. a character that took the ACF and didn't take obtain familiar, or a character that didn't take the ACF and kept the base familiar.

[Elkad]

If you intend to PRC on wizard/sorc, trading your familiar away and then buying it back with the feat is always the better option.

[RandomPeasant]

I agree that it creates perverse incentives for players to metagame taking ACFs that drop summon familiar and take obtain familiar later on. That's unfortunate. Which is why I wonder if it was a mistake that obtain familiar was supposed to fix, but inadvertently made another part of the game breakdown (albeit, not severely).

I think if someone does two dumb things that kinda cancel out, that's probably evidence that they're just kinda dumb, not that they were trying to fix the first dumb thing.


The strongest evidence I can think off that Prc that advance casting aren't casting classes themself, unless they have independent casting, is that you can't advance one such PrC with another different such PrC.

The real question is what "class that allows you to cast arcane spells" is supposed to mean, because as far as I know that's not the standard terminology for either base classes or PrCs. In the context of PrCs, the term used is "arcane spellcasting class". You could argue that the two are supposed to be synonyms, but I don't find that terribly persuasive when the same book is using different terminology.


That isn't a free trade, you're losing a feat. In most cases, I don't think an ACF is worth a feat.

Abrupt Jaunt probably is. But that's not really the point. The issue is that putting people in a situation where that's potentially true is a bad idea.

[Psyren]

Even when the feat in question is obtain familiar, and you are giving up a class feature that was going to be gimped because you intended to take PrCs that do not advance familiars?

Think of the alternative of the familiar loving sorcerer that doesn't intend to stay in the sorcerer class but wants real class features from PrCs. This sorcerer will take obtain familiar. Therefore, this sorcerer has nothing to lose by giving up its familiar for an ACF and taking obtain familiar, which it was going to take anyway. Effectively, it's metagamed.

If you prefer, Pathfinder makes getting a familiar cost 3 feats (Iron Will, Familiar Bond, Improved Familiar Bond.) That's a bit of an excessive cost for 3.5, but PF gives you more feats anyway, so a compromise between the two might be having it cost two feats. And thanks to familiar archetypes, you potentially get a lot more benefit out of that third one than a standard familiar could otherwise give. The PF version is also usable by anyone, not just arcane casters.

(Note also that even if you just stop at the first Bond, you still get a creature that scales with your HP and skills, alertness, empathic link, improved evasion, and speak with master.)

[Darg]

Really aren't missing much when multiclassing as has been said. The natural armor bonus loss is a hit, but a familiar isn't defenseless if a wizard buffs them. The Int loss doesn't really do anything but make the familiar more susceptible to int drain/damage.

There are many ways to boost AC and the HP can be compensated in a number ways also. It's generally a waste to get obtain familiar just for the AC and abilities beyond 5th.

[Gnaeus]

If you prefer, Pathfinder makes getting a familiar cost 3 feats (Iron Will, Familiar Bond, Improved Familiar Bond.) That's a bit of an excessive cost for 3.5, but PF gives you more feats anyway, so a compromise between the two might be having it cost two feats. And thanks to familiar archetypes, you potentially get a lot more benefit out of that third one than a standard familiar could otherwise give. The PF version is also usable by anyone, not just arcane casters.

(Note also that even if you just stop at the first Bond, you still get a creature that scales with your HP and skills, alertness, empathic link, improved evasion, and speak with master.)

Or you variant multiclass wizard. Which costs more in a level 19+ build but could actually be cheaper in a low level campaign and which gives you the familiar for the first feat and you get to pay the other feats later.

[Psyren]

Or you variant multiclass wizard. Which costs more in a level 19+ build but could actually be cheaper in a low level campaign and which gives you the familiar for the first feat and you get to pay the other feats later.

Indeed, VMC Wizard is the fastest way to get a scaling familiar onto any other class. As noted it costs you 5 feats in the long run, but only one if you expect the game to end earlier. This does also lock you out of other VMC options, but VMC Wizard is one of the stronger ones anyway.

Another option is VMC Magus -> Familiar Arcana. Generally inferior to the VMC Wizard option, but if you were going for spellstrike anyway...