| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Muriqui07-11-07, 03:45 PM | Hello, Iīm starting my first grupo in LG and Iīm plannig to play a Arcane Hierophat. Well, my group have 3 more players that do not decided yet theis characters, but i am problably going to be the spellcaster. So, here are my questions: 1) What would be the ideal way to order the points in atributes? I know that inteligence and wisdom is a must, but i wouldnīt like to have three 6 in order do achieve that. 2) Since we are only 4 players, I am going to cause to much trouble to the group in the begging , since my spells are going to be weaker? Well, sorry for the bad english and hope u guys can help me. |
| Jay_Ibero_91107-11-07, 04:15 PM | Hello, Iīm starting my first grupo in LG and Iīm plannig to play a Arcane Hierophat. Well, my group have 3 more players that do not decided yet theis characters, but i am problably going to be the spellcaster. So, here are my questions: 1) What would be the ideal way to order the points in atributes? I know that inteligence and wisdom is a must, but i wouldnīt like to have three 6 in order do achieve that. 2) Since we are only 4 players, I am going to cause to much trouble to the group in the begging , since my spells are going to be weaker? Well, sorry for the bad english and hope u guys can help me. Race:Grey Elf Alignment: STR-10 (2)-2 DEX-14 (6)+2 CON-14 (6)-2 INT-15 (8)+2 WIS-14 (6) CHA-8 (0) Lv1(Druid)Skill Focus (Handle Animal) Lv2(Druid) Lv3(Druid)Craft Wondrous Item Lv4(Wizard)+1 INT Lv5(Wizard) Lv6(Wizard)Practiced Spellcaster (x) Lv7(Beastmaster) Lv8(Arcane Hierophant)+1 WIS Lv9(Arcane Hierophant)Practiced Spellcaster (y) Lv10(Arcane Hierophant) Lv11(Arcane Hierophant) Lv12(Arcane Hierophant)Feat, +1 WIS Lv13(Arcane Hierophant) Lv14(Arcane Hierophant) Lv15(Arcane Hierophant)Feat This is a pretty basic AH build. Gives you a durable beasty, and plenty of crafting options, as well as full caster level once you pickup both practiced spellcaster feats. |
| Muriqui07-11-07, 04:30 PM | Thank you a lot! But why Skill Focus (Handle Animal)? |
| bitznarf07-11-07, 04:32 PM | It's a prerequisite for Beastmaster. Also note that Natural Bond may be a feat to look into. These look like unmodified stats by the way, with the gray elf adjustment they would become: STR-8 (2) DEX-16 (6) CON-12 (6) INT-17 (8) WIS-14 (6) CHA-8 (0) |
| Muriqui07-11-07, 04:35 PM | Ah! Didnīt see the Beastmaster Thanks! And for the familiar/natural comp, whatīs the best ? Tiger ? |
| Jay_Ibero_91107-11-07, 04:50 PM | Ah! Didnīt see the Beastmaster Thanks! And for the familiar/natural comp, whatīs the best ? Tiger ? Personally I prefer rhino for durability, but lions/tigers can make short work of anything they pounce on... |
| Demoyn07-11-07, 05:13 PM | If you're group only has 4 players, you should probably stick to the basics (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric). Nearly every game written uses these four classes to base the balance and power levels from, and if you split your wizard levels then you won't always have the right spell access to deal with the challenges. |
| Muriqui07-11-07, 09:28 PM | Thatīs what i was talking about. U guys think that i will be weak and not be able to help my group, in the early levels? |
| clannagh07-11-07, 09:46 PM | Thatīs what i was talking about. U guys think that i will be weak and not be able to help my group, in the early levels? early levels you are druid and will hold your own the weak levels are between 5 and 8 |
| trollbill07-11-07, 10:28 PM | Once you get the Tiger, you should be fine. Too, fine, actually. Arcane Heirophants with Tigers have a tendancy to dominate tables. Just remember D&D is a team game. :) |
| ShinAkuma207-11-07, 10:37 PM | I wouldn't recommend taking Crafting feats with such a small group. You risk taking yourself out early, leaving a three-person team with a bunch of extra TUs. Until you have "back-up" characters, crafting isn't really a good idea. |
| MatteBlack07-12-07, 10:41 AM | I'd think if you could get a solid fighter, a tougher cleric and then a wizard who can also hold down the roguing duties, you'd be good to go. Cohorts could also help shore up those empty seats. |
| Demoyn07-12-07, 01:24 PM | Personally, I think that if you REALLY want to play a heirophant, you should start with a sorcerer and take the heirophant character as a cohort at level 6 (I say sorcerer because of the charisma bonus to leadership score). Also, have the cleric take leadership at level 6 and get a rogue. Have the person who is currently playing your roguely type character play either a ranger or a barbarian/rogue (or scout) for now... all you really have to do is cover search, spot, and disable checks until you get a dedicated rogue. A rogue skill gumby can easily be 2 levels below the rest of the party. |
| Muriqui07-12-07, 02:11 PM | Thank you all for the answers! Well, I think I will follow your guideline, except for the beastmaster.. The loss of CL seem to bad for me. What you guys think? And for early spells, anyone have sugestions? Thanks! |
| Grantor07-12-07, 02:39 PM | Thank you all for the answers! Well, I think I will follow your guideline, except for the beastmaster.. The loss of CL seem to bad for me. What you guys think? And for early spells, anyone have sugestions? Thanks! But with the Beastmaster giving +3 to the Effective Druid Level of your character, you get a huge boost to the effectiveness of your beastie. |
| Muriqui07-12-07, 02:48 PM | Yeah, but since I have a small group, I think that the caster level will be more important thant the animal comp. Donīt you think? |
| delewobmesid07-12-07, 02:54 PM | Yeah, but since I have a small group, I think that the caster level will be more important thant the animal comp. Donīt you think? There are two basic approaches to Arcane Heirophant; one is the build earlier druid3/wiz3/beastmaster1/AH+ The other is Druid3/Wiz3/Mystic Theure2/AH+; one isn't better than the other; the difference is how you want to play your character; the MT build will have a slightly higher caster progression than the BM build; I favor the beastmaster build since with a small group you are going to need warm bodies or creature to hold the baddies off the a few rounds while you patch each other up. See the link at the top of this forumn for other build ideas posted by MwaO. Most importantly, have fun and bring a cleric. |
| Muriqui07-12-07, 03:04 PM | Yeah, i think beastmaster is a must, everyone suggest it! I will have to reconsider =) |
| Demoyn07-12-07, 03:18 PM | Yeah, but since I have a small group, I think that the caster level will be more important thant the animal comp. Donīt you think? If you were really serious about this, you wouldn't be suggesting a multiclass caster to begin with. Take the beastmaster level... at least your animal companion will be up to par with the APL, even if your spell levels aren't (and they never will be unless you're a straight wizard). |
| awroe07-12-07, 05:39 PM | What feats are likely to work best with an AH build? The post above suggests two Practiced Spellcasters, but I've never been convinced it was worth taking both of them. |
| Gargoyle11707-13-07, 10:18 AM | Isn't there a feat that adds +3 to your druid level for determining animal companion level? It may be that it allows progression in up to 3 levels of a class other than Druid. I believe that this would accomplish the same thing as the Beast Master class, if you take the feat in place of Skill Focus (Handle Animal). Our Arcane Hierophant has Practiced Spell Caster, or whatever feat allows your caster level in a certain class to progress while you take levels outside of the class. You do not gain more spells per day or higher spell access, but your CL checks go up, durations and other numerical level based effects go up. These feats may help you out some as well. |
| GeorgeFHarris07-13-07, 10:27 AM | Isn't there a feat that adds +3 to your druid level for determining animal companion level? It may be that it allows progression in up to 3 levels of a class other than Druid. I believe that this would accomplish the same thing as the Beast Master class, if you take the feat in place of Skill Focus (Handle Animal). Our Arcane Hierophant has Practiced Spell Caster, or whatever feat allows your caster level in a certain class to progress while you take levels outside of the class. You do not gain more spells per day or higher spell access, but your CL checks go up, durations and other numerical level based effects go up. These feats may help you out some as well. Natural Bond is basically practiced spellcaster for the Animal Companion (for 3 levels), which makes it perfect for AH. The only problem is that it is NONC. The good news is that it is one of the first NONC feats that regional meta-orgs are allowed to give out. So a Wiz3/Dru3/Bst1/AH1 would have an AC equivalent to an 11th level Druid. Druid 3 Wiz 3 (with Natural Bond) Bst 4 AH 1 --------- tot 11 GH |
| Gargoyle11707-13-07, 10:39 AM | George, Thanks for the NONC update. I live in a rather elfy region and our AH has access to it from about 3 sources. I kind of forgot that others might not have so much luck. Would Natural Bond work with a 3 Druid / 1 Beastmaster / 3 Wizard to give you a net 10 effective Druid Level? That may still be nice for some AH builds. |
| awroe07-13-07, 11:24 AM | George, Thanks for the NONC update. I live in a rather elfy region and our AH has access to it from about 3 sources. I kind of forgot that others might not have so much luck. Would Natural Bond work with a 3 Druid / 1 Beastmaster / 3 Wizard to give you a net 10 effective Druid Level? That may still be nice for some AH builds. It should do - If you apply feats in the most favorable order, Natural Bond counters the three levels lost for Wizard and Beastmaster adds on three more that are not capped by character level. |
| Banor07-13-07, 04:49 PM | It should do - If you apply feats in the most favorable order, Natural Bond counters the three levels lost for Wizard and Beastmaster adds on three more that are not capped by character level. Note that Natural bound is retroactive, you could have taken it any time and it will apply (same can be said for Practised spellcaster) You cannot use it to get over your CL tho, so it does not matter when you took the feat, if it would get you over you Character level it stop working ie a 5 level druid with 1 level of beastmaster cant use Natural bound and have a EDL of 12, he will be at 9. Now if he takes a Tiger (-6 EDL), his EDL will drop back to 6 not 3 (as natural bound resume as it wont push you over your character level) In the exemple Gargoyle117 quote yes it will work |
| Nerax07-13-07, 08:12 PM | What feats are likely to work best with an AH build? The post above suggests two Practiced Spellcasters, but I've never been convinced it was worth taking both of them. I took Practiced Spellcaster twice for my AcH and I love every moment of it. I believe that it is a must for any multi-class caster to get on at least one side or the other. The difference is do you want 3 or 5 magic missiles, do you want your familiar companion receiving an "extended" magic fang for 10 or 18 hours @ either +1 or +3, do you want to add just +5 to your SR check or +9? I could keep going but I think that I have made my argument for taking it twice. :D Personally, I think that if you REALLY want to play a heirophant, you should start with a sorcerer and take the heirophant character as a cohort at level 6. I would recomend against this as your cohort would be really far behind in caster levels. Say you have a 8th level Sorcerer, he would have a 6th level cohort who would be casting 2nd level Druid and 2nd level Wizard spells at APL 8. I think that any 4 party table should look into having Cohorts but if you do they should be support characters like Bards, Marshalls, Rogues or even a Full caster level Healing/Buffing Clerics. Just my opinion.... |
| awroe07-14-07, 10:28 AM | Note that Natural bound is retroactive, you could have taken it any time and it will apply (same can be said for Practised spellcaster) You cannot use it to get over your CL tho, so it does not matter when you took the feat, if it would get you over you Character level it stop working ie a 5 level druid with 1 level of beastmaster cant use Natural bound and have a EDL of 12, he will be at 9. Now if he takes a Tiger (-6 EDL), his EDL will drop back to 6 not 3 (as natural bound resume as it wont push you over your character level) In the exemple Gargoyle117 quote yes it will work While Natural Bond won't let you go over your CL, Beastmaster *will*. So for a Druid 3 / Wizard 3 / BM 1, you have an EDL of 3 from Druid, Natural bond pushes this up to 6 (less than your CL), then Beastmaster adds 4 giving an EDL of 10, allowing you to take a 10th level tier animal companion *or* a 1st level one with increases as if you were 10th level. Just as if you were a Druid 6 / BM 1? |
| Muriqui07-14-07, 12:43 PM | And what about Wild Shape? What is the best forms?? |
| Nerax07-14-07, 02:24 PM | And what about Wild Shape? What is the best forms?? You may run into some problems with this...the wording in the AcH PrC on wildshaping is ambiguous and some DM's may not let you wildshape. I myself beleive that you can stack Druid and AcH levels to get wildshape. I only use my wildshape as a utility option(DM: you are in the water, Me: Crap, I wildshape into a fish/amphibion). The problem you will run into is wearing a Periphat of Wis or Headband of Int will loose you some of your highest level spells. I know that my next level, when I get access to wildshape into large animals, Lions, Tigers and Brown Bears(oh my) will be very good choices. As for medium sized, Eagles, Cheetas, Badgers/Wolverines and Octopuses are my typical utility shapes. By the way, another option to take is Druid 5/Wizard 3 and then AcH. This is the way I took so I didn't have to worry about DM's telling me I couldn't wildsahpe. Hope this helps! :D |
| ShinAkuma207-14-07, 02:39 PM | You may run into some problems with this...the wording in the AcH PrC on wildshaping is ambiguous and some DM's may not let you wildshape. I myself beleive that you can stack Druid and AcH levels to get wildshape. There's nothing ambiguous about it, since it gives the clear example of Wiz3/Dru3/ArH4 being a 7th level Druid for the purpose of Wild Shaping. The Druid4 example NPC can Wild Shape as well, because his Arcane Heirophant levels make him an 8th lvl Druid for that purpose. |
| Muriqui07-14-07, 02:45 PM | Yes, my DM shares the same opinion, so i will be able to wildshape in the first AH level. I think that the 1st forms will be Bear, Crocodile.. |
| awroe07-14-07, 03:31 PM | There's nothing ambiguous about it, since it gives the clear example of Wiz3/Dru3/ArH4 being a 7th level Druid for the purpose of Wild Shaping. The Druid4 example NPC can Wild Shape as well, because his Arcane Heirophant levels make him an 8th lvl Druid for that purpose. Except a Wiz3/Dru3 doesn't have the BAB to enter the class in the first place, so the whole build is invalid. Thus "expect table variation". |
| King Kashue07-14-07, 03:49 PM | Except a Wiz3/Dru3 doesn't have the BAB to enter the class in the first place, so the whole build is invalid. Thus "expect table variation". First of all, the example is irrelevant, the text is explicit: It says you don't gain the ability, then it includes the conditional: However, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level. (RW p.108) Period, full stop. There is nothing to suggest that statement is incorrect or invalid. Second, there are actually folks making the argument that because the build is invalid the point it's illustrating is also invalid? The purpose of the example is to show the math of adding druid level + AH level. 3+4=7 is the substance of the sentence. Again, there's nothing to suggest the rule doesn't hold simply because the build is wrong. Further, even if the example is invalidated, it doesn't affect the previous sentence which explicitly states the rule. Are you or Nerax actually running into DMs who say they don't stack? If so, how are they justifying not reading the rule as written? |
| rockondon07-14-07, 03:50 PM | You may run into some problems with this...the wording in the AcH PrC on wildshaping is ambiguous and some DM's may not let you wildshape. I myself beleive that you can stack Druid and AcH levels to get wildshape. perhaps you can translate the following 'ambiguous' entry concerning Arcane Hierophant from Races of the Wild: Wild Shape (SU): If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape. although it does seem strange that their example involved the Druid 3/Wizard 3/Arcane heirophant 4 can wild shape like a lvl 7 druid. Weird. |
| ShinAkuma207-14-07, 06:41 PM | Except a Wiz3/Dru3 doesn't have the BAB to enter the class in the first place, so the whole build is invalid. Thus "expect table variation". Except their example character, Edrec, is a Druid4/Wizard3/Arcane Heirophant4 with the ability to Wild Shape, holding it for up to 8 hours. So we two clear examples that say you can gain Wildshape if you're a druid, and Zero that say otherwise. Why should we expect table variation now? |
| Nerax07-14-07, 08:35 PM | Are you or Nerax actually running into DMs who say they don't stack? If so, how are they justifying not reading the rule as written? Yep... They are only reading the first sentence: Wild Shape (SU): If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape. I don't personally run into this problem, as i took 5 levels of Druid, but I have run into a couple of DM's at con's that rule it based on the first sentence... |
| Mommy was an Orc07-14-07, 09:44 PM | Yep... They are only reading the first sentence: Wild Shape (SU): If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape. It has very little to do with just reading the first sentence. There are two ways to interpret however in the 2nd sentence: "Nevertheless, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level." "However, if you do already possess the ability, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level." The 1st reading involves completely ignoring the 1st sentence - it is absolutely irrelevant to the paragraph. It is also generally considered an incorrect use of However, because it leads to just this sort of confusion. The 2nd reading involves completely ignoring the example. Given a choice of ignoring a sentence of rules text or an example, I'd pick the example every time... |
| King Kashue07-14-07, 11:13 PM | It has very little to do with just reading the first sentence. There are two ways to interpret however in the 2nd sentence: "Nevertheless, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level." "However, if you do already possess the ability, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level." The 1st reading involves completely ignoring the 1st sentence - it is absolutely irrelevant to the paragraph. It is also generally considered an incorrect use of However, because it leads to just this sort of confusion. The 2nd reading involves completely ignoring the example. Given a choice of ignoring a sentence of rules text or an example, I'd pick the example every time... The second also involves completely ignoring the sentence after the example. So it's "ignore one sentence" or "ignore one sentence and the example sentence"... |
| Mommy was an Orc07-14-07, 11:51 PM | The second also involves completely ignoring the sentence after the example. So it's "ignore one sentence" or "ignore one sentence and the example sentence"... No, it doesn't. You're looking at it through your interpretation of the RAW, I'm looking at it through mine - it simply states that non-druids don't gain this ability. You can look at it as contradicting the 1st sentence, or you can look at it in the following way: If a non-druid for some reason has WIldshape, this ability doesn't stack with it. Examples being Abolisher or some weird template that grants limited Wildshape based on worshipping certain Egyptian deities. And as it is impossible for a Wizard/Ranger to become an AH as they can't get Woodland Stride, that's just more ammo to ignore the other examples. |
| King Kashue07-15-07, 12:50 AM | And as it is impossible for a Wizard/Ranger to become an AH as they can't get Woodland Stride, that's just more ammo to ignore the other examples. Rangers get woodland stride at 7th level...You mean trackless step. And still, why does the fact that the builds used in the examples are incorrect invalidate the process they are clearly trying to illustrate? The validity of the build is not related to the intent of the example. Look at it this way, if the period after the first sentence is a comma instead of a period, there is absolutely no contradictions within the passage... Given the poor grammar and editing in the passage (as you have demonstrated so well in discussions on the passage), how can you be so confident using that one period to invalidate the entire passage except for the first sentence? |
| Howie2307-15-07, 01:01 AM | Rangers get woodland stride at 7th level...You mean trackless step. Ranger can get there via Wildrunner, IIRC. My RoW is out on loan, but this was on my shortlist before I just decided to by a guy w/a bow. David |
| King Kashue07-15-07, 01:05 AM | Ranger can get there via Wildrunner, IIRC. My RoW is out on loan, but this was on my shortlist before I just decided to by a guy w/a bow. David Yep, first level. |
| magebeast07-15-07, 09:38 AM | Yep, first level. Three levels of scout also get you there, if you wanted to put it in an AH build for whatever godawful reason. |
| Mommy was an Orc07-15-07, 09:39 AM | And still, why does the fact that the builds used in the examples are incorrect invalidate the process they are clearly trying to illustrate? The validity of the build is not related to the intent of the example. If the person was correctly trying to illustrate the build with examples, he would have corrected the Ranger/Wizard example and the 1st sentence. We can't assume that the person writing the examples had any idea as to intent. Given the poor grammar and editing in the passage (as you have demonstrated so well in discussions on the passage), how can you be so confident using that one period to invalidate the entire passage except for the first sentence? I can't. But given a choice between ignoring a sentence of rules text and ignoring examples, I'll do the 2nd every single time. Especially when intent is so unclear. |
| MatteBlack07-17-07, 01:32 PM | Yep... They are only reading the first sentence: Wild Shape (SU): If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape. I don't personally run into this problem, as I took 5 levels of Druid, but I have run into a couple of DM's at con's that rule it based on the first sentence... I tend to think that line exists as an attempt to clear up the the possible misreading of the level advancement chart. On the chart, it lists at first level: Wildshape. A player could look at the chart and think they get the ability to wildshape upon the first level of AH. The line in question merely serves to highlight that and the next line goes on to define what Wildshape means in this listing for AH. They probably tacked that line on at the end and its clarity suffered from the lack of time spent. The real question is: What makes more sense, allowing you to stack levels of AH for the purposes of wildshaping but, only if you take that 5th level or just letting the level stack for wildshaping? I can't think of any other PrC where they have made a condition like that. It would probably be interesting to ask those who believe you need Druid 5 to get Wildshaping as an AH whether they like AH as a class and feel it is balanced. I tend to think its more of a case of DMs using weak writing as an excuse to amend a class they don't like. |
| copper_wyrmling07-18-07, 01:05 AM | What makes more sense, allowing you to stack levels of AH for the purposes of wildshaping but, only if you take that 5th level or just letting the level stack for wildshaping? I can't think of any other PrC where they have made a condition like that. There are PrCs that advance sneak attack, but only if you already have the ability (e.g. unseen seer). There are also PrCs that advance undead turning, but only if you already have the ability (master of radiance is the one that springs to mind, but that's debatable - I'm pretty sure there's a better example out there). Stacking PrC levels with levels of a base class to determine WHEN you gain an ability is a lot less common than PrC levels advancing an ability that you already have upon entering the PrC. I'm not saying arcane hierophant doesn't work like that, but it's unusual. |
| clannagh07-18-07, 03:08 AM | There are also PrCs that advance undead turning, but only if you already have the ability (master of radiance is the one that springs to mind, but that's debatable - I'm pretty sure there's a better example out there). RSOP comes to mind .. though in that case it specifically only advances turn undead for clerics. |
| Banor07-18-07, 08:04 AM | There are PrCs that advance sneak attack, but only if you already have the ability (e.g. unseen seer). There are also PrCs that advance undead turning, but only if you already have the ability (master of radiance is the one that springs to mind, but that's debatable - I'm pretty sure there's a better example out there). While you do have a point on that one, there is a fundamental difference between these abilities ; they are level 1 class features meaning that there is no way for a cleric to not have some turning (as craptastic as it might be). My exemple of why it would work is the paladin spell casting. A Fighter4/Paladin2/GreyguardX would still get his spellcasting at Greyguard 4 even tho he doesnt have the ability yet. |
| Mommy was an Orc07-18-07, 10:58 AM | My exemple of why it would work is the paladin spell casting. A Fighter4/Paladin2/GreyguardX would still get his spellcasting at Greyguard 4 even tho he doesnt have the ability yet. Except he does actually have the ability. That's why he can use spell trigger items... |
| Banor07-18-07, 12:19 PM | Except he does actually have the ability. That's why he can use spell trigger items... He has the ability as much as a level 4 druid got his wild shape ability ; he got it, its a class feature not yet "unlocked". Thus the arcane hierophant wild shape advancement doesnt gives him wild shape, it simply continues his wild shaping abilities (a druid with wild shape 0/day or a paladin with CL 0 is pretty much the same no ?) |
| King Kashue07-18-07, 01:37 PM | Except he does actually have the ability. That's why he can use spell trigger items... No, he can use spell trigger items because he has levels in a class with a spell list. He has no casting ability and no caster level. If he had the ability to cast spells, he could use scrolls. |
| Mommy was an Orc07-18-07, 02:08 PM | No, he can use spell trigger items because he has levels in a class with a spell list. He has no casting ability and no caster level. If he had the ability to cast spells, he could use scrolls. To quote spell trigger items on DMG page 213: "just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know" He may not be able to cast spells or have a caster level - but he does have knowledge of spellcasting that a character not belonging to a spellcasting class can't have. i.e. even at 1st level, a Paladin 1 has an ability based on his class ability to spellcast(and it quite specifically does not come from somewhere else). It might not be fully unlocked, but it is there on some small level. That's simply not true for Wildshape and a Druid 1-4. |
| King Kashue07-18-07, 03:03 PM | That's simply not true for Wildshape and a Druid 1-4. An unsupportable analogy. The only way to demonstrate this would be a "wild shape trigger" item that a druid levels 1-4 cannot use. Barring this, you have only interpretation and no valid rules comparison (which is the only thing the rest of us have as well, at least in general). |
| Mommy was an Orc07-18-07, 03:16 PM | An unsupportable analogy. The only way to demonstrate this would be a "wild shape trigger" item that a druid levels 1-4 cannot use. Barring this, you have only interpretation and no valid rules comparison (which is the only thing the rest of us have as well, at least in general). i.e. a Paladin 2 does have some sort of spellcasting knowledge and we don't know at all whether or not a Druid 1-4 has some sort of Wildshape knowledge. It isn't my analogy that's unsupported, it is using Greyguard that doesn't help. |
| copper_wyrmling07-18-07, 11:17 PM | While you do have a point on that one, there is a fundamental difference between these abilities ; they are level 1 class features meaning that there is no way for a cleric to not have some turning (as craptastic as it might be). My exemple of why it would work is the paladin spell casting. A Fighter4/Paladin2/GreyguardX would still get his spellcasting at Greyguard 4 even tho he doesnt have the ability yet. Paladins get turning at L4 - it's not necessarily a L1 class feature. I haven't looked at Grey Guard (my copy of CS is on the opposite side of the world at the moment), but if it stacks with paladin levels for determining when they first get spellcasting, then sure, that would mean that the wildshape-gaining interpretation of arcane hierophant is not unique - I still think it's unusual, but that's not a good argument either for or against it. |
| Reznor0007-20-07, 12:04 AM | How would spells that buff a familiar work? Does your Companion Familiar still count as a familiar since it gains some benefits of the familiar chart and is considered a magical beast? It might say this in the FAQ but I thought someone here would know for sure as I don't recall seeing anything in the FAQ but that doesn't mean I did not miss something. :-) Thanks, ~MB |
| clannagh07-20-07, 12:29 AM | How would spells that buff a familiar work? Does your Companion Familiar still count as a familiar since it gains some benefits of the familiar chart and is considered a magical beast? It might say this in the FAQ but I thought someone here would know for sure as I don't recall seeing anything in the FAQ but that doesn't mean I did not miss something. :-) Thanks, ~MB Problematic Companion Familiar: Upon becoming an arcane hierophant, you must dismiss your familiar, if you have one. (You do not risk losing XP for doing so.) You may retain any one animal companion you already possess. So you get to keep your animal companion and dismiss your familiar. In addition, your animal companion (if any) gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess. Your animal companian gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess, but its specifically called an animal companion not a familiar. By RAW its an animal companion not a familiar and hence familiar buffing spells will not effect it. |
| Reznor0007-20-07, 12:37 AM | Kind of what I thought it does call it a 'familiar companion' later in that section and if it dies you can summon another one in a process that takes 24 hrs which is very familiar summoning like. I don't think I would try and buff with those spells that increase familiars combat prowess, since it's unclear and you would risk running into alot of table variation where DMs would say no (and totally with good cause on this area of the rules), though it would be nice to see them have something in the FAQ for this particular subject soon though. ~MB |
| clannagh07-20-07, 12:47 AM | Kind of what I thought it does call it a 'familiar companion' later in that section and if it dies you can summon another one in a process that takes 24 hrs which is very familiar summoning like. I don't think I would try and buff with those spells that increase familiars combat prowess, since it's unclear and you would risk running into alot of table variation where DMs would say no (and totally with good cause on this area of the rules), though it would be nice to see them have something in the FAQ for this particular subject soon though. ~MB On the plus side, the description specifically says that even though the criiter is now a magical beast harmless spells that target animals can be cast on it. Hence animal growth still works. This, aside from RAW considerations, is part of the reason many GMs seem opposed to allowing familiar buffs like enhance and fortify familar. A high level AH with natural bond that can animal growth, fortify and enhance a companian familiar is capable of creating some rather broken combinations. |
| JamesMaissen07-20-07, 01:22 PM | This, aside from RAW considerations, is part of the reason many GMs seem opposed to allowing familiar buffs like enhance and fortify familar. A high level AH with natural bond that can animal growth, fortify and enhance a companian familiar is capable of creating some rather broken combinations. I don't think it's broken, rather it's just a case of piling on and going against perceptions. What I find most interesting is when this debate went through there was no one in the 'it's not a familiar' camp that didn't dislike the idea of an AH subsequently then summoning a new familiar after waiting the time from dismissing their old one during the process of getting a familiar companion. This seems to me that everyone reads the intent of the AH ability as the animal companion and familiar being merged into one creature. So it boils down to trying to apply an exacting reading to a class that wasn't written to those standards. A bad recipe in general. -James |
| King Kashue07-20-07, 04:09 PM | This seems to me that everyone reads the intent of the AH ability as the animal companion and familiar being merged into one creature. Except, you know, for all the people who specifically and explicitly disagreed with your perception when you stated that...:rolleyes: |
| JamesMaissen07-20-07, 08:55 PM | Except, you know, for all the people who specifically and explicitly disagreed with your perception when you stated that...:rolleyes: Cool, so you mean that you now believe that AH can summon familiars after waiting the downtime required. Before you had an issue with that like everyone else. Guess things change, or am I recalling things incorrectly and you've always believed that AH's don't have a familiar so they can summon them back after getting the companion familiar like any wizard could after dismissing their familiar? Before I could have sworn that many people did indeed have a problem with that despite also saying that the companion familiar was not a familiar but instead only got abilities from that table. -James |
| Mommy was an Orc07-20-07, 09:23 PM | Before I could have sworn that many people did indeed have a problem with that despite also saying that the companion familiar was not a familiar but instead only got abilities from that table. -James I'm sure we could rule that the companion familiar goes away for a year and you lose XP every time it dies. As the rules text says specifically otherwise, it doesn't. Just because two abilities merge into one, doesn't mean you get all the benefits and disadvantages of both. You get what the rules tell you get. But I guess as you're arguing that we should ignore the rules text that says it is an animal companion with many familiar abilities, we should ignore the rest of the rules text too? |
| King Kashue07-21-07, 12:30 AM | Cool, so you mean that you now believe that AH can summon familiars after waiting the downtime required. No, just like it wasn't when you tried to assert this last time. It was a false dilemma fallacy then, and it's a false dilemma fallacy now. I have no desire to explain it again just to have you ignore everyone's points one more time... |
| JamesMaissen07-21-07, 01:19 AM | This seems to me that everyone reads the intent of the AH ability as the animal companion and familiar being merged into one creature. Except, you know, for all the people who specifically and explicitly disagreed with your perception when you stated that... So KK, you mean like this one: Just because two abilities merge into one, doesn't mean you get all the benefits and disadvantages of both. You get what the rules tell you get. That seems awfully like what I said. I apologize if I'm misreading that or if you disagree with him as well (and others with similar thoughts). So, how about the following.. I'll say that many people on both sides of the argument (with the express exception of King Kashue) think of the intent of the Familiar Companion as the merging of the animal companion with the familiar. Is that better? To MwaO: But I guess as you're arguing that we should ignore the rules text that says it is an animal companion with many familiar abilities, we should ignore the rest of the rules text too? I don't really care whether it is considered a familiar or it is not. I *do* care about consistent rulings at a given table. Thus if it is *not* a familiar (and I can understand the argument supporting that view) then as nothing has removed the familiar class feature from the character they would still possess it. As you (MwaO) said: You get what the rules tell you get. The rules don't say that the character loses the familiar class feature, so why should it? And to you (KK): It was a false dilemma fallacy then, and it's a false dilemma fallacy now. It's not a dilemma at all. If the companion familiar is not a familiar then you should have no problems with the character calling a new familiar per the rules for dismissing one. Its simple consistency. Taking a literal reading of the text for one part and then reading into it at the same time isn't. But then again to recap you don't see the intent of the familiar companion as the merging of the familiar and the animal companion and you don't believe (and I can understand this part) the familiar companion counting as a familiar, so why on earth would you not believe that an AH can't summon a new familiar? What is stopping them from doing so? From a literal reading: 1. The PrC nowhere says that the Familiar Companion is considered the character's familiar. 2. The PrC nowhere removes the familiar class feature from the character. 3. The only thing stopping an AH from summoning a new familiar after the delay period is if they already have one per the normal rules for dismissing a familiar. What's the dilemma? For you (KK) it should be plainly clear that they can do so, while for me (as I do think the intent of the familiar companion ability is the merging of the two class features) it feels problematic and leads me to believe that more careful wording was needed in this ability. -James |
| King Kashue07-21-07, 01:34 AM | It's not a dilemma at all. :bored: I'm not saying "we're having a dilemma"... "False dilemma" is the name of the logical fallacy you are committing. If the companion familiar is not a familiar then you should have no problems with the character calling a new familiar per the rules for dismissing one. Its simple consistency. Taking a literal reading of the text for one part and then reading into it at the same time isn't. And there is the fallacy again. The interpretation you are providing there is not the only possible interpretation when using a literal reading of the rules. That you say it is, is the fallacy. You're saying "If not A, therefore B"...Except there is an "C" that you continue to ignore every time it's brought up (and no, I'm not the only one who put forth the idea)... I'll say it again: Now (as before), you're interpreting the verb "dismiss" as a limited condition, it happens once, that's it. Except that is not the only literal reading of that word, and it's not the only way D&D books use it. Dismissal can be a continuing state. You dismiss your familiar and it stays dismissed. That is a literal, dictionary usage of the verb. It does not require the familiar companion to "count" as both, and it also does not allow for the re-summoning of the familiar. That you don't want to acknowledge that's a legitimate, literal interpretation of the RAW does not prevent it from being so. That is the "C" that you continue to fallaciously ignore... |
| Mommy was an Orc07-21-07, 09:19 AM | Now (as before), you're interpreting the verb "dismiss" as a limited condition, it happens once, that's it. Except that is not the only literal reading of that word, and it's not the only way D&D books use it. Dismissal can be a continuing state. You dismiss your familiar and it stays dismissed. And (again) also 'upon becoming' is consistently used to mean 'upon and after entering', not 'upon literally becoming' in every single spellcasting advancing class - including Arcane Hierophant. To interpret the meaning of upon becoming differently for the Companion Familiar is inconsistent. And if you use your interpretation for Companion Familiar to spellcasting, all kinds of havoc arise when someone takes a spellcasting class after entering a PrC, then takes the PrC again. |
| JamesMaissen07-21-07, 11:44 AM | Now (as before), you're interpreting the verb "dismiss" as a limited condition, it happens once, that's it. Except that is not the only literal reading of that word, and it's not the only way D&D books use it. Dismissal can be a continuing state. You dismiss your familiar and it stays dismissed. There are rules for dismissing a familiar, are you saying they don't apply? Sure the familiar stays dismissed. After a year and a day a new one can be called by those rules of the class feature. They still have the class feature as it hasn't been 'dismissed' or more properly said 'removed'. Now MwaO has a better argument with intent there, I happen to disagree with it.. but then again he and I are in agreement that the intent was to merge the two class features, unlike you and I. Laters, James |
| King Kashue07-21-07, 12:07 PM | Now MwaO has a better argument with intent there, I happen to disagree with it.. but then again he and I are in agreement that the intent was to merge the two class features, unlike you and I. Laters, James Well, considering MwaO and I hold the exact same interpretation, your statement might be, um, utterly wrong...;) And no, he doesn't hold the intent was to merge the two class features, since he doesn't hold the Familiar Companion is a "familiar" for spells with "target:familiar"... Dismissal is permanent because of the reason MwaO is saying, and it being permanent is still a literal reading... Seriously, we both went through all of this last time this came up, just go back and read that... For example, here's just one post in the thread where MwaO rejects your false dilemma (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12467533&postcount=52), just as I am (again)... |
| Mommy was an Orc07-21-07, 02:02 PM | The rules don't say that the character loses the familiar class feature, so why should it? That's an interpretation as to intent. I think they very clearly state that they do effectively lose the class feature. As the AH must dismiss the familiar upon becoming an AH. And as I noted, that means they must continue to dismiss any and all familiars that they have by how D&D uses 'upon becoming'. It is a permanent state of being an AH, not just upon entry. You can argue if their intent was to allow people to burn XP by dismissing their familiar once a year, but I think most people can see that if the intent was to dismiss the familiar in an ongoing way, the intent was to not be able to use that class feature. |
| JamesMaissen07-22-07, 12:26 AM | And as I noted, that means they must continue to dismiss any and all familiars that they have by how D&D uses 'upon becoming'. It is a permanent state of being an AH, not just upon entry. Could you give some examples on where D&D uses 'upon becoming' in this fashion? Can we agree that this is at least not normal English? -James |
| Mommy was an Orc07-22-07, 11:55 AM | Could you give some examples on where D&D uses 'upon becoming' in this fashion? Can we agree that this is at least not normal English? -James It is actually more how they use becoming. 2nd paragraph of pretty much every single PrC that advances spellcasting(including Arcane Hierophant) - they all explain what happens if you have 2 spellcasting classes before becoming, that you must pick one to advance each level. In other words, let's say you're a Bard 9/Virtuoso 1/Sublime Chord 1 and you take another level in Virtuoso? As you weren't a Sublime Chord before becoming a Virtuoso, does this now mean you advance both arcane casting classes as per the 1st paragraph? It is perfectly clear that you don't if you read 'becoming' in the way that I'm doing. If is unclear if you read it in the way that you are doing. Druids and Druidic. "A druid also knows Druidic, a secret language known only to druids, which she learns upon becoming a 1st-level druid" - they unlearn it once they get past 1st level? It is also perfectly acceptable and clear English. i.e. "Upon becoming a police officer, one must strive to set a good example." |
| JamesMaissen07-23-07, 04:21 PM | Druids and Druidic. "A druid also knows Druidic, a secret language known only to druids, which she learns upon becoming a 1st-level druid" - they unlearn it once they get past 1st level? It is also perfectly acceptable and clear English. i.e. "Upon becoming a police officer, one must strive to set a good example." I think our views split not upon the word 'becoming' but rather how we see dismissing the familiar. I see it as a single act, while you see it as a state (somehow, which I don't quite follow). A wizard has not 'undone' the dismissing of his first familiar by summoning a new one. It's just that his class ability allows him to gain another, different one, after dismissing the first one. The first familiar was still dismissed and doesn't rejoin the wizard. In your druid example above, the druid *has* learned druidic at 1st level. They don't need to continue to learn it over and over again. The task is completed. For example, imagine if the Assassin PrC had used wording like 'Upon becoming an Assassin, one must kill their closest friend to prove their loyalty to the guild'. Would the above imply to you that the assassin must repeatedly perform this task thereby going through all of his/her friends in sequence, or that it just needs to be done once to be accomplished? Or is there something intrinsically wrong with the sentence that I'm missing? -James |
| Franco Un-American07-23-07, 04:41 PM | Of course it's ambiguous. Those examples are just plain incorrect ones if you read the rules text. But this is a discussion for elsewhere. |
| King Kashue07-23-07, 04:53 PM | For example, imagine if the Assassin PrC had used wording like 'Upon becoming an Assassin, one must kill their closest friend to prove their loyalty to the guild'. Would the above imply to you that the assassin must repeatedly perform this task thereby going through all of his/her friends in sequence, or that it just needs to be done once to be accomplished? Or is there something intrinsically wrong with the sentence that I'm missing? Perhaps that's why they didn't phrase it that way...http://ebassist.com/forum/images/smilies/badidea.gif A sentence you just made up isn't terribly relevant... If you want to use examples from actual rules text, that would be great, but making up sentences that would create a conflict in usage doesn't create an actual conflict in usage... |
| User07-26-07, 02:55 AM | I can't see the reason why someone wants to play an Arcane Hierophant. Before the errata the arcane hierophant was the only way to cast an "animal growth" on your animal companion, but now, you can cast it on every ordinary one. A Druid X with 1 level beastmaster is a much stronger build, isn't it? |
| clannagh07-26-07, 03:02 AM | I can't see the reason why someone wants to play an Arcane Hierophant. Before the errata the arcane hierophant was the only way to cast an "animal growth" on your animal companion, but now, you can cast it on every ordinary one. A Druid X with 1 level beastmaster is a much stronger build, isn't it? Animal Growth is a Druid spell they always could cast it ? Or are you saying at one stage in the past your animal companian was not a valid target ? The attraction to AH is that AH is the ultimate generalist caster with a vast choice of spells and a ludicrous number of spells per day. You do drop caster levels but can take practiced spell caster to counter that and do your metamagic with rods. A non-LG level 20 AH with the last 5 or so levels as Eldritch Knight is one of the more powerful level 20 builds. The chunky animal is often just a bonus. Now in LG the build doesnt really start firing until level 10 or so and you have to retire at 15 so it has a definite downside that 2/3 of your career is weak. Which is why you never see them often. |
| User07-26-07, 04:56 AM | Animal Growth is a Druid spell they always could cast it ? Or are you saying at one stage in the past your animal companian was not a valid target ? The target of "Animal Growth" is (and was) "Up to one animal ..." Before the errata the animal companion was a magical beast, so it was not a valid target for the spell. Now, after the errata it's just an animal. The companion familiar of the arcane hierophant is (and was) a magical beast, but with the exception that you can cast "harmless" spells for animals on it. I thought this exception was the main reason to take Arcane Hierophant. The attraction to AH is that AH is the ultimate generalist caster with a vast choice of spells and a ludicrous number of spells per day. You do drop caster levels but can take practiced spell caster to counter that and do your metamagic with rods. A non-LG level 20 AH with the last 5 or so levels as Eldritch Knight is one of the more powerful level 20 builds. The chunky animal is often just a bonus. Now in LG the build doesnt really start firing until level 10 or so and you have to retire at 15 so it has a definite downside that 2/3 of your career is weak. Which is why you never see them often. I agree with you. It's cool to cast level 9 arcane and level 9 divine spells at character level 20. There's no doubt. But that's not Living Greyhawk. |