Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 05-18-07, 10:27 AM	I probably will never play one (I tend to play vanilla single class characters), but I've seen them discussed and was wondering what experience players have had with them in LG. Are they fun? I can imagine they can be effective buffing machines (albeit perhaps not as much as a bard or cleric). Just wondering.
amnuxoll 05-18-07, 10:51 AM	All three of the AH that I've seen have been wickedly effective. One of them buffed the heck out of his ape animal companion and sent it in to do battle. The second one, would buff the heck out of his charging rhino animal companion and ready a dimension door to go off immediately after the charge (thus gaining a bizarre and brutal spring attack). The third one is an uber summoner who deals in quantity rather than quality. :AMN:
Sieylianna 05-18-07, 12:47 PM	I've played with two different Arcane Heirophants in about five modules. In every case, the AH was less effective than my straight druid. I like the class and if I had access to the Natural Bond feat would have gone in that direction with the builder book rebuild or the recent druid rebuild. However, I don't have access and didn't want to cripple my companion. Ed
magebeast 05-18-07, 01:00 PM	The one guy going for AH in our area never decides what he's going to do before his turn comes, and then he takes forever to do it and doesn't always do the right thing. I'm sure, given somebody who understood the complexity of his character better, the character would be decently powerful.
Ancillary 05-18-07, 09:43 PM	I believe arcane hierophants to be at the very top of the power curve (although they are not alone up there), once they actually become them. Natural Bond is available from several Metaorgs in Gran march so you do not even have to compromise your flavor much. When you put the familiar-only buffs (that offer significant bonuses and last hours) on an animal companion that can now do anything you want it to because it is as smart as the front line fighter, you have a tank that is probably better at tanking than the tank character. Then your character can contribute with judicious spell choices. You have excellent saves except reflex, decent hitpoints, and can even be a bird flying around. I would go so far as to say that their only weak point is their reflex save. Are they fun? I don't know. Your character will be fighting by proxy (their animal companion). Considering I am already playing the game with a proxy, removing it a second step is not my thing. Your turns will take a long time even if you are very efficient (I can't imagine playing with the one described by the poster above). Since you are so powerful and take up so much game time (don't forget you have plenty of soft skills for out of combat) it is not outside reason the other players might get annoyed at you.
Morgen 05-19-07, 02:05 PM	They also combine well with all the wierd extra animal companions you find laying about in certs and meta-orgs. Natural Bond and a level of Beastmaster help though.
nobodez 05-19-07, 04:09 PM	Arcane hierophants are fun (I play a Drd 3/So 4/AH 6). It has a unique flavor, and unless you're comfortable with that flavor (relying on your companion, buffing, dishing out loads of spells a bit behind the level curve), it can be a bit disappointing. I was lucky enough to be able to sidestep the early levels with the druid rebuild, and since I'm a Leadership monkey, I went for the usually suboptimal Sorcerer route. As a build, I'd concentrate your Druid spells on buffs (barkskin and stoneskin for instance), and use your arcane (wizard/sorcerer/warmage/beguiler) as a blaster (well, a debuffer in the case of beguiler). It's a very feat intensive build, as you'll require two practiced spellcasters and natural bond to be efficient. Many also take Natural Spell, but I've noticed that I'd rather accompany my companion familiar into battle (to share the buffs, and to be there to heal) than to fight on my own. IF you don't go Wizard you'll probably also want Well Read (a regional feat from the Dragon Magazines), and if you're a Warmage or Sorcerer, Leadership is a good feat to have (since it'll allow you to have either another tank to augment your companion, or another spellcaster to augment yourself). I've seen Wizard AHs that go Drd 3/Wiz 3/MT 2/AH X, but that decreases your Companion Familiar and requires another 6 skill points, and gives very little in the way of return other than spells (which you'll get one level sooner than 3/4/X AHs). If you like playing a secondary role in the party, and you're comfortable running more than one character (PC plus Companion Familiar plus possibly Leadership), than AH is a good role for you. If you want to be the kind of Druid that shows Barbarians how it's done, you're probably better off as a straight Druid or with a Warshaper level or two. Oh, and don't forget about Healthful Rest and Vigor (expect table variation).
King Kashue 05-19-07, 05:25 PM	Mine isn't yet to the point of actually being an AH yet :D But I will say the typo in RotW where they describe a Wiz 3/Druid 3/AH 4 messed up my planning until I noticed the BAB +4 requirement :D
Mommy was an Orc 05-19-07, 05:38 PM	When you put the familiar-only buffs (that offer significant bonuses and last hours) on an animal companion that can now do anything you want it to because it is as smart as the front line fighter, you have a tank that is probably better at tanking than the tank character. You do realize that a Companion Familiar is no more a Familiar than a Monstrous Humanoid is a Person... The text clearly(scarily, given what a mess AH is...) describes that you must dismiss your familiar, that you retain an animal companion, and that the animal companion then gains "many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess." That still doesn't make it a familiar...
Ancillary 05-20-07, 02:04 AM	After the animal companion gains the described traits, it is then referred to as a "familiar companion" instead of an animal companion. Whether a familiar companion still counts as a familiar for the purposes of familiar spells is not clear. The question is whether familiar companions are a subset of familiars or of animal companions or both. If you say it does not benefit from familiar specific things I see no reason why it would benefit from animal companion specific things either (not that I can think of anything off the top of my head, maybe the feat coordinated strike would not work). While they do not come out and say it I believe by calling it a familiar companion they intended it to be regarded as both when a finished product, and only used the terms familiar and animal companion to describe how its game stats are calculated.
King Kashue 05-20-07, 02:19 AM	Whether a familiar companion still counts as a familiar for the purposes of familiar spells is not clear. It is actually rather clear, as MwaO says. Upon becoming an arcane hierophant, you must dismiss your familiar, if you have one. You may retain any one animal companion you already possess. You add your arcane hierophant class level to your druid or ranger level for purposes of determining your animal companion's bonus Hit Dice, natural armor adjustment, and Strength/Dexterity adjustment. In addition, your animal companion (if any) gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess. You add your arcane hierophant class levels to your arcane spellcasting class level, and determine the Intelligence bonus and special abilities of your animal companion accordingly. (RW p. 108). If you say it does not benefit from familiar specific things I see no reason why it would benefit from animal companion specific things either (not that I can think of anything off the top of my head, maybe the feat coordinated strike would not work). While they do not come out and say it I believe by calling it a familiar companion they intended it to be regarded as both when a finished product, and only used the terms familiar and animal companion to describe how its game stats are calculated. But they don't use the term familiar to describe it at any point, so your comparison is invalid. They only use the term "animal companion" when discussing how to 'create' the familiar companion. Even when discussing the addition of some (but not all) of the familiar abilities, they still use the term "animal companion".
Ancillary 05-20-07, 02:49 AM	They use the term animal companion in the next paragraph as well. They say that the hit dice, etc for the familiar companion are as for an animal companion. At this point it is clear that a familiar companion is distinct from an animal companion. The arcane hierophant class does not make you dismiss your animal companion but instead *changes* it into a familiar companion. The question is then whether the new product, the familiar companion, can be targeted by familiar-only spells. Since it is a familiar companion, I believe that it can be. Of course, since it is a familiar companion the other interpretation would be that it cannot be. It is whether you look at it as a gestalt of both or not. Since gestalt seems to be the authors intention, I go with it being treated as both in those cases where it is relevant.
King Kashue 05-20-07, 05:09 AM	They use the term animal companion in the next paragraph as well. They say that the hit dice, etc for the familiar companion are as for an animal companion. At this point it is clear that a familiar companion is distinct from an animal companion. The arcane hierophant class does not make you dismiss your animal companion but instead *changes* it into a familiar companion. Indeed. You dismiss your familiar, and you keep your animal companion. And it's not distinct in that the passage continually refers to it as "your animal companion"... Whatever, read it how you want... And just as a pet peeve, you're using the term 'gestalt' incorrectly. MwaO used it incorrectly in another thread (in a different way), and evidently I was too subtle pointing it out, so I'm now just calling people on it. Gestalt does not mean "combination". In fact, what you're describing (a unified being that can be described simply as a sum of it's parts) is the opposite of a gestalt. No big thing, just a pet peeve of mine along with irregardless and people using moot as a synonym of irrelevant...;)
Timlagor 05-20-07, 07:15 AM	Man.. I'm still trying to get peopel to stop typing "diety" 4 times in the same post. According to my dictionary, one definition of moot is "having no practical significance" which is pretty darn close. The FC's ability to have spells channeled through it for LoE is not a feature of either of it's parts. My interpretation of the text is that they use Animal Companion because that was how the creature started out. It's clear that they are describing eh creation of a "Familiar Companion" however. The most significant part wrt this is that is gets "many" of the familiar abilities. I would allow use of Familiar only spells but I wouldn't insist upon it.
clannagh 05-20-07, 08:15 AM	The other point to watch is that it becomes a magical beast which means animal growth will fail on it.
Mommy was an Orc 05-20-07, 08:31 AM	And just as a pet peeve, you're using the term 'gestalt' incorrectly. MwaO used it incorrectly in another thread (in a different way), and evidently I was too subtle pointing it out, so I'm now just calling people on it. Gestalt does not mean "combination". Gestalt is the term used by WotC for their Unearthed Arcana option that allows you to take 2 classes at once. A PrC that's too easy to qualify for and mimics too much of the base class qualities is effectively a 'gestalt' PrC. And a WotC designer has referred to it in exactly that way in a conversation with me.
Mommy was an Orc 05-20-07, 08:39 AM	Since it is a familiar companion, I believe that it can be. And so a Monstrous Humanoid can have Enlarge Person cast on it? That's not how the rules work unless the rules option specifically states that you indeed do have a specific link. As an example, the rules option keeps calling it your Animal Companion - I'd easily rule that any spell that affects your Animal Companion can be cast upon it(such as Animal Growth) - but the Companion Familiar rules spell out exactly how it is like a familiar - it gets to use the chart.
JamesMaissen 05-20-07, 10:41 AM	As an example, the rules option keeps calling it your Animal Companion - I'd easily rule that any spell that affects your Animal Companion can be cast upon it(such as Animal Growth) - but the Companion Familiar rules spell out exactly how it is like a familiar - it gets to use the chart. So an AH could, after a possible year delay, summon a familiar as well? Seems contrary to the spirit of things, James
Ancillary 05-20-07, 01:53 PM	James you took my follow up :) MwaO: So you do not think you could cast familiar spells on a familiar companion (citing monstrous humanoid), but think you can cast animal companion spells upon it? You are being inconsistant.
King Kashue 05-20-07, 02:38 PM	A PrC that's too easy to qualify for and mimics too much of the base class qualities is effectively a 'gestalt' PrC. And a WotC designer has referred to it in exactly that way in a conversation with me. Fine, then they're using the term incorrectly...:D All I know is that multiple people are, and it annoys me every time ;)
copper_wyrmling 05-20-07, 02:49 PM	Bizarre and scary as it is, I think I agree with MwaO :eek: Saying that if you retain your animal companion and then it gets some familiar abilities, you can't cast spells on it that have Target: Your Familiar but you can cast spells that have Target: Your Animal Companion, is not being inconsistent. "Companion Familiar" is the name of the ability: the text describes exactly what that means (or at least attempts to). As I read the text, you keep your animal companion and apply some of the familiar abilities to it: Intelligence bonus, special abilities based on master's level, and it becomes a magical beast. It's a new class feature (called Companion Familiar) built off your existing animal companion, and it continues to use the animal companion rules for advancement. You can explicitly use harmless spells on the familiar companion "as if it were an animal instead of a magical beast".
Nerax 05-20-07, 04:48 PM	I probably will never play one (I tend to play vanilla single class characters), but I've seen them discussed and was wondering what experience players have had with them in LG. Are they fun? I can imagine they can be effective buffing machines (albeit perhaps not as much as a bard or cleric). Just wondering. To get back on topic :D I really enjoy playing mine. (Druid 5/Wizard 3/AcH 2 + Tiger) Infact he was my secondary character and has now become my primary. I would say that I am the cohort and my companion familiar is the pc as I mainly stand there and buff/heal him. I have lots of spells but I had to take Practiced Spellcaster twice to make them effective. I also received access to Natural Bond through a mod (Yay!) so that really made a diffrence with the CF. With my decent Int score I have a good amount of skills for in and out of combat. Most of the time I list myself as light infantry since I am such a secondary caster. With my range of spells available I can fill in a lot of rolls...healer being the most common. :confused: With my next level I am planing on retraining out of SF Consentration and taking the PHBII feat that allows me to share spells at a distance and do touch spells as close range with my CF. This will help as my CF is really starting to get nuked alot being the main threat and with my bad Ref save it is really starting to hurt. Funny thing is my CF has evastion so he makes 90% of his ref saves anyway. Alot of people think, it is a wasted feat but I also took Track. At 12th I might take Natural Spell or CWI but that is still undeceided at this time.
TWG_Prometheus 05-20-07, 08:13 PM	With my next level I am planing on retraining out of SF Consentration and taking the PHBII feat that allows me to share spells at a distance and do touch spells as close range with my CF. This will help as my CF is really starting to get nuked alot being the main threat and with my bad Ref save it is really starting to hurt. The feat you're referring to is Companion Spellbond, and it's Closed.
Mommy was an Orc 05-20-07, 08:35 PM	James you took my follow up :) MwaO: So you do not think you could cast familiar spells on a familiar companion (citing monstrous humanoid), but think you can cast animal companion spells upon it? You are being inconsistant. Yes. It is not inconsistent - the thing is specifically referred to as an animal companion several times. It is never referred to as being a familiar.
JamesMaissen 05-20-07, 10:23 PM	Yes. It is not inconsistent - the thing is specifically referred to as an animal companion several times. It is never referred to as being a familiar. So you do believe that an Arcane Hierophant can call a new familiar after waiting a year? So that then they would have a Familiar companion AND a familiar, but not an Animal Companion? That's a bit strange to me, James
King Kashue 05-20-07, 10:38 PM	So you do believe that an Arcane Hierophant can call a new familiar after waiting a year? So that then they would have a Familiar companion AND a familiar, but not an Animal Companion? That's a bit strange to me, James No, because the ability says you must dismiss your familiar... It's the "letter but not spirit" rationalization that concludes "well, you must dismiss it, but you then can re-summon one because it doesn't say you can't"... The Familiar companion is just what the text says it is. An animal companion with many traits "normally possessed" by a familiar. In several places it calls it an animal companion. In no place does it call it a familiar. In no place does it say it is both.
Ancillary 05-20-07, 11:36 PM	Actually, any place it is called something, such as in the other class abilities or the sample character it is called a familiar companion. Animal companion is only referenced in the how-to-stat your familiar companion section.
JamesMaissen 05-21-07, 12:32 AM	No, because the ability says you must dismiss your familiar... It's the "letter but not spirit" rationalization that concludes "well, you must dismiss it, but you then can re-summon one because it doesn't say you can't"... The Familiar companion is just what the text says it is. An animal companion with many traits "normally possessed" by a familiar. In several places it calls it an animal companion. In no place does it call it a familiar. In no place does it say it is both. Yes, you must dismiss the familiar. So you dismiss it. A year later, do you have a familiar? You would answer: no. Therefore the character still has the summon familiar ability, has no familiar and has waited a year after dismissing his last one so he is free to summon another. What's wrong with that reasoning? My answer: the PC has a familiar. It's their familiar companion and it counts as both the familiar and the animal companion for the PC. What's your answer? -James
King Kashue 05-21-07, 12:54 AM	Yes, you must dismiss the familiar. So you dismiss it. A year later, do you have a familiar? You would answer: no. Therefore the character still has the summon familiar ability, has no familiar and has waited a year after dismissing his last one so he is free to summon another. What's wrong with that reasoning? My answer: the PC has a familiar. It's their familiar companion and it counts as both the familiar and the animal companion for the PC. What's your answer? -James That you don't have a familiar because you're required to dismiss it. Dismissal is not only a momentary process, it is also a progressive state. If a defendant is required to dismiss his attorney for an ethics violation, he's not allowed to rehire him two weeks later and say "you told me to dismiss him, you didn't say I couldn't rehire him"... In addition, your animal companion (if any) gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess. "that a familiar would normally possess", i.e., if it were a familiar, it would possess all of these, but it's different and merely "gains many of the abilities". If it were nothing more than a combination between your companion and your familiar, half of the paragraph would be unnecessary. Let's turn it around...You've said "the PC has a familiar. It's their familiar companion and it counts as both the familiar and the animal companion for the PC." Show me where it says that. Cite the text please. Other than the name of the ability, what in the ability description says that? The only thing that suggests that is the name of the ability. Everything else (i.e., the whole of the ability description) makes no mention of that, and treats it as if that is not the case, including mentioning that spells that work on animals work on it (which is an exception to the rules, and what is at issue here), but it does not provide an additional exception for 'target: familiar' spells.
magebeast 05-21-07, 02:35 AM	That you don't have a familiar because you're required to dismiss it. Dismissal is not only a momentary process, it is also a progressive state. If a defendant is required to dismiss his attorney for an ethics violation, he's not allowed to rehire him two weeks later and say "you told me to dismiss him, you didn't say I couldn't rehire him"... But you didn't dismiss your familiar for ethics violations. The two things aren't the same. If you dismissed from a class, it doesn't mean that it isn't ever going to meet again. Dismissing a familiar is a very specific action described in the PHB - not the dictionary definition of the word.
King Kashue 05-21-07, 02:42 AM	Dismissing a familiar is a very specific action described in the PHB - not the dictionary definition of the word. And it's not the same as in the PHB, there are specific differences in this case. It's also not voluntary, you must do it. Anyhoo, my question still stands: "What, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"?
JamesMaissen 05-21-07, 12:04 PM	That you don't have a familiar because you're required to dismiss it. Dismissal is not only a momentary process, it is also a progressive state. From the SRD: "If the familiar dies or is dismissed by the sorcerer, the sorcerer must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude saving throw. Failure means he loses 200 experience points per sorcerer level; success reduces the loss to one-half that amount. However, a sorcerer’s experience point total can never go below 0 as the result of a familiar’s demise or dismissal. A slain or dismissed familiar cannot be replaced for a year and day. A slain familiar can be raised from the dead just as a character can be, and it does not lose a level or a Constitution point when this happy event occurs. A character with more than one class that grants a familiar may have only one familiar at a time." Now the dismissing of the Arcane Hierophant's Familiar references this in saying that you 'don't lose xp for doing so'. It's clearly referencing what happens when you dismiss a familiar. Dismiss is certainly not always a permanent state of affairs especially in regards to a Familiar. After a year and a day it can be replaced. The only restriction possibly stopping an Arcane Hierophant is that 'may have only one familiar at a time'. To me it leaves two possibilities: the familiar companion counts as the familiar or the familiar was dismissed (which means after a year and a day another one can be summoned). -James
Mommy was an Orc 05-21-07, 12:36 PM	To me it leaves two possibilities: the familiar companion counts as the familiar or the familiar was dismissed (which means after a year and a day another one can be summoned). Or the obvious 3rd possibility - you give up the ability to have a familiar for an animal companion that has many of the abilities of a familiar...and if you try to summon up another familiar, you must immediately dismiss it.
King Kashue 05-21-07, 02:19 PM	I'm just going to repeat this every time someone ignores it instead of answering it... "What, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"?
JamesMaissen 05-21-07, 02:51 PM	"What, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"? I think an immediate consequence of reading it that way means that you can summon another familiar after the delay period. This doesn't seem right to me, does it to you? I notice that people haven't gone to say that they think that they should be able to have a familiar and a familiar companion. Rather you've gone to reinterpreting 'dismiss' to mean something else than deal with it. The Arcane Hierophant is messed up enough (does a druid4/wiz3/AH1 get to wildshape?) to merit some rewording. Hopefully the FAQ or future errata will address it. -James
King Kashue 05-21-07, 02:59 PM	I think an immediate consequence of reading it that way means that you can summon another familiar after the delay period. This doesn't seem right to me, does it to you? That also doesn't seem to answer my question in the slightest... The "ramifications" that you can summon another familiar is not something in the description that suggests that your familiar companion is a familiar for purposes of spells. It's an extrapolated conclusion (with which there are solid reasons to disagree, and is not the given you're describing it as), and then another extrapolated conclusion based on that assumed premise... Once again (and I'll clarify slightly): "What in the text, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"?
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-21-07, 03:55 PM	Or the obvious 3rd possibility - you give up the ability to have a familiar for an animal companion that has many of the abilities of a familiar...and if you try to summon up another familiar, you must immediately dismiss it. I'm forced to agree with James. Nowhere in the description does it say that you lose the ability to Summon Familiars. From the description of Dismissal of a Familiar it is a single event not an ongoing state. Further, the mechanism for creating a Familiar Companion is the only part of the text that says that you must dismiss your Familiar. Therefore, as long as your existing Familiar Companion was not killed/dismissed, and then replaced, re-invoking the the must-dismiss-text, you could have both after a year... unless, of course, the Familiar Companion is itself a Familiar. As I see it, an animal with even one Familiar ability counts as a Familiar unless specifically stated otherwise. Improved Familiars don't have all the normal Familiar abilities either, specifically they do not necessarily have the type Magical Beast, nor do they have the Speak with creatures of their Type ability (DMG P.200). If the presence of less than 100% of the normal familiar abilities is enough to render Familiar Companions non-legal targets for Familiar Only spells does that mean that Improved Familiars cannot be targeted by these spells too? Further, I do consider the name of the ability to be representative of what the animal is. I see no reason to discount the name as an author-intended description of the creature. Counting a Familiar Companion as a Familiar seems to satisfy the letter and spirit of the rules especially if we don't ignore the name of the class feature. Not counting it as a Familiar does not satisfy the letter of the rules unless we decide that the origin of the base creature somehow overwrites the fact that it ultimately gains familiar abilities. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To actually get back to the discussion of AH builds, mine seems a bit different from the ones listed so far. Instead of focusing on the Druid side, my character focuses on the Arcane side. My AH is currently: Wizard 5, Druid 3, Arcane Hierophant 6, Contemplative 1. I'm generally do not play through the proxy of my own Familiar Companion. Rather, I use him to extent the effectiveness of my spells. I've had access to Natural Bond for some time now, but decided it was not worth it for my play style. I do agree that Practiced Spell Caster both ways is a must though. I use my Familiar Companion (Dire Bat) as an Artillery Platform to channel-cast around the corners I create with Walls of Force. I've optimized it, not around Damage, but Armor Class so that it can, if necessary, function as a wall itself. On the offense side of things I'm a big fan of Languor plus Quickened Ray of Enfeeblement (unnamed penalties)... there aren't many opponent tanks that can shrug-off 2d6+12 strength penalty.;) Another favorite is Consecrated Extended Produce Flame channeled to the Dire Bat. Judges don't normally expect a Dire Bat to engage in ranged attacks!:D I find AH to be an extremely effective class as long as one remains creative. In the "Playing an Arcane Hierophant" section of RotW, p.110, there's a comment that sums up my attitude toward the class: "[Your character] didn't get where he is... by thinking inside the box."
King Kashue 05-21-07, 04:05 PM	As I see it, an animal with even one Familiar ability counts as a Familiar unless specifically stated otherwise. Improved Familiars don't have all the normal Familiar abilities either, specifically they do not necessarily have the type Magical Beast, nor do they have the Speak with creatures of their Type ability (DMG P.200). If the presence of less than 100% of the normal familiar abilities is enough to render Familiar Companions non-legal targets for Familiar Only spells does that mean that Improved Familiars cannot be targeted by these spells too? However, the text on Improved Familiar explicitly states that they're counted as familiars...Such corresponding text is quite absent from the AH description..."As you see it" is unfortunately not "as the text states"... And again... "What in the text, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"?
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-21-07, 07:21 PM	However, the text on Improved Familiar explicitly states that they're counted as familiars... No. It does not. The DMG's description of Improved Familiar never discusses spells that can be only cast upon familiars. Further, it refers to Improved Familiars only as "Improved Familiars" or "creatures". There are several sentences concerning Familiars-In-General interspersed amongst the descriptions of "Improved Familiars". However, Improved Familiars are never explicitly stated as counting as familiars. The closest it comes to saying so is "Improved familiars otherwise use the rules on page 52 of the Player's Handbook with two exceptions..." But then.... so do Familiar Companions... just with a different set of exceptions. "...otherwise use the rules on page 52..."(Improved Familiar DMG P.100) . and "...gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess."(Companion Familiar RotW P.108) sound pretty similar to me. Both suggest that some but not all of the normal Familiar rules apply. Both involve placing some but not all of the Familiar abilities on new base creatures from various lists. It is peculiar to count one but not the other as a Familiar. And again... "What in the text, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"? 1st. The question is irrelevant, because THE NAMES DO MATTER. It's unreasonable to expect the authors to explicitly state that something counts as what it is actually called! This is why you won't find the sentence "Familiars count as Familiars." in any of the books. Ignoring the name is cherry-picking the rules. Much more importantly, ignoring the name reveals a lack of concern with the author's INTENT. 2nd. The name of the ability is "Companion Familiar", however the creature is referred to in the text as "Familiar Companion". The fact that they use both word orders interchangeably indicates that the words "Familiar" and "Companion" are not NAMES (Names are static), but rather descriptions. The variable word order of "Companion" and "Familiar" is implicit acknowledgment that the creature is both. 3rd. In direct answer to your question, it gains familiar abilities, including abilities such as Scry and Speak With Master that only Familiars get. To me that "suggests" it is a familiar! I'm hardly alone in that interpretation, in 40+ LG games with my AH over 4 regions, I have never encountered a judge who even blinked at the idea that the Companion Familiar were Familiars.
Timlagor 05-21-07, 07:41 PM	"What in the text, other than the name of the ability, even suggests that it counts as your familiar for purposes of spells, much less explicitly states that"? The answer to that is: NOTHING (and imo nothing else is needed) What even suggests that you can't summon another familiar? Either the AF is your familiar and you can't get another or it isn't and you can.
Mommy was an Orc 05-21-07, 08:00 PM	No. It does not. The DMG's description of Improved Familiar never discusses spells that can be only cast upon familiars. It doesn't have to... "Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures below are also available to the spellcaster. The spellcaster may choose a familiar..." Care to point out where Companion Familiar says it is a familiar for any purpose other than gaining the abilities on the chart? I'm hardly alone in that interpretation, in 40+ LG games with my AH over 4 regions, I have never encountered a judge who even blinked at the idea that the Companion Familiar were Familiars. You mean GMs trusting players to give them correct information about their abilities? What is this world coming to?
Mommy was an Orc 05-21-07, 08:02 PM	The answer to that is: NOTHING (and imo nothing else is needed) What even suggests that you can't summon another familiar? Either the AF is your familiar and you can't get another or it isn't and you can. Or again, the 3rd possibility is that you no longer have a familiar in PHB terms, but rather, it has been replaced by an ability with similar, but not identical traits.
JamesMaissen 05-21-07, 11:17 PM	Or again, the 3rd possibility is that you no longer have a familiar in PHB terms, but rather, it has been replaced by an ability with similar, but not identical traits. But it doesn't say that it removes the class ability from you. If it did wouldn't it say 'you no longer have the ability' rather than 'you must dismiss'? Dismiss is part of the familiar ability and has rules for it's use. The AH circumvents the xp loss part which would be moot if the class ability was removed. Now I agree that it's reasonable to assume that what you are saying was the intent.. along (and hand in hand) with it being considered a familiar for spells and effects. However, if you take a literal reading to say it's not a familiar, then it's not a familiar. It never removes the familiar class feature so it remains and the rules for its use are still valid. -James
Mommy was an Orc 05-22-07, 12:11 AM	However, if you take a literal reading to say it's not a familiar, then it's not a familiar. It never removes the familiar class feature so it remains and the rules for its use are still valid. Honestly, I think you're the one taking a very literal reading to say it is a familiar. The only evidence you have it is a familiar in that way is the name of the ability - despite the ability saying multiple times that it is an animal companion with certain specific familiar abilities. Again, quote the relevant passage where it says that they're considered familiars in any way except as specifically delineated. As I've shown, Improved Familiar is quite clear that they're considered familiars. AH does no such thing.
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-22-07, 12:42 AM	It doesn't have to... "Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures below are also available to the spellcaster. The spellcaster may choose a familiar..." Lets read that quote the same way certain people are reading the Companion Familiar rules! :P "are also available"... could be read: you choose a Familiar OR you could choose one of these creatures. Just because you get an Improved Familiar at the same time as a Familiar (ie.. you had to dismiss any Familiar you had!) doesn't mean it really is one!.... that is unless the fact that its called an Improved Familiar actually matters! Care to point out where Companion Familiar says it is a familiar for any purpose other than gaining the abilities on the chart? Oh, I see now... The fact that is called a Companion Familiar doesn't matter because it's just a name, and the fact that it gets powers from the Familiar chart doesn't count because because it hasn't been named a Familiar! How Circular. The author's intent (which is the ONLY meaningful metric to judge rules by) is clear as crystal: It is intended to be a mixture of Animal Companion and Familiar... that means it's Both. It's Named Both; it has the Abilities of Both. How much clearer could the author have possibly made it? You mean GMs trusting players to give them correct information about their abilities? What is this world coming to? No, as a matter of fact I mean judges who include Con-coordinators, current and former Triad Members, and Module Authors. People who know the rules because they themselves use them in writing modules, interactives, and their own characters, since you ask. Further, as long as you are accusing me of lying by omittion, I would like to state, for the record, that I go out of my way to present all sides of every rules question I pose to a judge, and yes I carry a copy of all relevant rules.
King Kashue 05-22-07, 01:09 AM	Lets read that quote the same way certain people are reading the Companion Familiar rules! :P "are also available"... could be read: you choose a Familiar OR you could choose one of these creatures. Just because you get an Improved Familiar at the same time as a Familiar (ie.. you had to dismiss any Familiar you had!) doesn't mean it really is one!.... that is unless the fact that its called an Improved Familiar actually matters! Oh you could, you know, actually read the gorram text... Improved Familiar [General] This feat allows spellcasters to acquire a new familiar from a non-standard list, but only when they could normally acquire a new familiar (DMG p.200) But you know, your interpretation, where you ignore the text, that interpretation is good too... Oh, I see now... The fact that is called a Companion Familiar doesn't matter because it's just a name, and the fact that it gets powers from the Familiar chart doesn't count because because it hasn't been named a Familiar! How Circular. That's not his argument at all, how strawman! :rolleyes: His argument is 'the text repeatedly refers to it as an animal companion that "gains many familiar abilities", which is an accurate description of the text. The author's intent (which is the ONLY meaningful metric to judge rules by) is clear as crystal: It is intended to be a mixture of Animal Companion and Familiar... that means it's Both. It's Named Both; it has the Abilities of Both. How much clearer could the author have possibly made it? They could have said "it counts as your familiar", the way that other abilities that replace your familiar do.
Timlagor 05-22-07, 08:33 AM	Or again, the 3rd possibility is that you no longer have a familiar in PHB terms, but rather, it has been replaced by an ability with similar, but not identical traits. Yeah.. if there was anything in the text to suggest that was actually the case. The case for the AF being a Familiar is much stronger than the case for losing the ability.
Mommy was an Orc 05-22-07, 10:15 AM	No, as a matter of fact I mean judges who include Con-coordinators, current and former Triad Members, and Module Authors. People who know the rules because they themselves use them in writing modules, interactives, and their own characters, since you ask. Further, as long as you are accusing me of lying by omittion, I would like to state, for the record, that I go out of my way to present all sides of every rules question I pose to a judge, and yes I carry a copy of all relevant rules. I'm not accusing you of lying by omission - you brought up the 40 GMs, but that's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion unless you're saying you told them my side of the argument and they supported you on it. As you're also still quoting Improved Familiar incorrectly, I doubt you've done it before now.
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-22-07, 01:01 PM	Oh you could, you know, actually read the gorram text... Improved Familiar [General] This feat allows spellcasters to acquire a new familiar from a non-standard list, but only when they could normally acquire a new familiar (DMG p.200) But you know, your interpretation, where you ignore the text, that interpretation is good too... If you are aloud to ignore names, I'm aloud to ignore text. Cherry-Picking only certain parts of the rules is the same regardless of whether you ignore the name or the text. I do believe that was my first answer to your question. :cool: You've yet to respond to the word order point, so I shall expand upon it. "Companion Familiar" is the bolded text. Therefore, "Companion Familiar" is the Name and "Familiar Companion" is NOT the name. That means "Familiar Companion" is descriptive text that repeatedly refers to it as a Familiar (and also as a Companion). You argue above that referring to an Improved Familiar as a Familiar makes it a Familiar. What's different here? You could say that "Companion Familiar" and "Familiar Companion" are INTENDED to be used interchangeably as names, but do you really want to talk about the Author's Intent? Your only reply to the fact is that it has Familiar abilities is that the construction method for generating some of its stats and abilities STARTS from an Animal Companion base creature. Focusing on the start of the process of constructing a Companion Familiar is like saying a Celestial Lion is really just an Animal with some extraplanar abilities. Even if correct, and I'm not conceding that, it is irrelevant! You've yet to support your assertion that an something called a Familiar and possessing Familiar Abilities is not a Familiar! You've only supported the position that it is ALSO an Animal Companion, not that it is an Animal Companion INSTEAD of a Familiar. They could have said "it counts as your familiar", the way that other abilities that replace your familiar do. Expecting an Author to write "A Companion Familiar counts as a Familiar and as a Companion." is no more reasonable than expecting an author to write "A Familiar counts as a Familiar." In both cases it is ALREADY called a Familiar! Further, I've yet to hear any reason why you think the name shouldn't be considered relevant.
JamesMaissen 05-22-07, 02:53 PM	Honestly, I think you're the one taking a very literal reading to say it is a familiar. The only evidence you have it is a familiar in that way is the name of the ability - despite the ability saying multiple times that it is an animal companion with certain specific familiar abilities. Again, quote the relevant passage where it says that they're considered familiars in any way except as specifically delineated. As I've shown, Improved Familiar is quite clear that they're considered familiars. AH does no such thing. What I'm saying is that I see two possibilities: 1> We go by the general spirit of the Familiar Companion in that it is both the familiar and the companion. 2> We take a very literal reading of it to say it's not the familiar and therefore the character may summon a new familiar following the rules for dismissing familiars. Now my question is that if you are content with it not being a familiar, what's wrong with a character that still has the familiar class ability from still using it? -James
King Kashue 05-22-07, 03:32 PM	Expecting an Author to write "A Companion Familiar counts as a Familiar and as a Companion." is no more reasonable than expecting an author to write "A Familiar counts as a Familiar." In both cases it is ALREADY called a Familiar! Further, I've yet to hear any reason why you think the name shouldn't be considered relevant. No, it's really not unreasonable, because all three versions of the Improved Familiar feat actually do come out and explicitly designate the improved familiar as a familiar, and do not rely on the name alone to suggest that. It's explicitly in the rules text, as opposed to with the AH, where it is not. And as for why the name of an ability shouldn't be considered part of the rules is because they're explicitly not, just like the flavor text in spell descriptions isn't considered a rules mechanic. If you are aloud to ignore names, I'm aloud to ignore text. Cherry-Picking only certain parts of the rules is the same regardless of whether you ignore the name or the text. I do believe that was my first answer to your question. :cool: First of all, the word is "allowed", not "aloud"... Second of all, if you're going to claim that abilities names are of equivalent authority as the rules text, I'm done discussing it with you, because you're coming from such a different place in your interpretation than pretty much everyone else (even the folks who agree with you), that I see no point...
Mommy was an Orc 05-22-07, 04:21 PM	What I'm saying is that I see two possibilities: 1> We go by the general spirit of the Familiar Companion in that it is both the familiar and the companion. 2> We take a very literal reading of it to say it's not the familiar and therefore the character may summon a new familiar following the rules for dismissing familiars. Now my question is that if you are content with it not being a familiar, what's wrong with a character that still has the familiar class ability from still using it? -James Because I don't view either of your possibilities as correct. If you view the spirit of the rules that the Arcane Hierophant is sacrificing his familiar in exchange for boosting his animal companion in some very specific ways, then he can't summon it back. Those ways are listed. It resembles a familiar in some aspects(access to the chart), but other than that, it isn't a familiar.
Qworg 05-22-07, 04:38 PM	To the topic at hand - I too believe that Arcane Hierophants are at the top of the power curve in terms of classes. The W3/Dr3/BM1/AH 8 build is absolutely spectacular with Natural Bond and double Practiced Spellcaster. If I had a druid, it would either be a summoning/spellcasting straight Dr15 or one of these monsters. If you don't mind your familiar companion doing all the fighting and your actual character playing a part time role, you'll absolutely love it.
King Kashue 05-22-07, 04:38 PM	Those ways are listed. It resembles a familiar in some aspects(access to the chart), but other than that, it isn't a familiar. This is the issue, right there. The ways in which it is a familiar are explicitly listed. Counting as your familiar for purposes of familiar-only spells is not among those. You want crystal clear? There it is. It replaces your familiar and your animal companion. It gains all the abilities of your animal companion. It gains many of the abilities of a familiar. Not included among those is counting as a familiar for purposes of familiar-only spells. And since there is an section about how the familiar companion acts as a target for spells, it cannot be reasonably argued "it's implied", because the paragraph is explicit with other elements.
magebeast 05-22-07, 05:55 PM	It replaces your familiar and your animal companion. It gains all the abilities of your animal companion. It gains many of the abilities of a familiar. Not included among those is counting as a familiar for purposes of familiar-only spells. Where does the class ability say that it replaces your familiar?
King Kashue 05-22-07, 05:59 PM	Where does the class ability say that it replaces your familiar? Actually, it doesn't, I was throwing a bone to the folks who are saying it does (i.e., you can read that part of my post as "fine, it replaces your familiar")... Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant to the issue of whether it counts as a familiar for familiar-only spells.
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-22-07, 06:20 PM	And as for why the name of an ability shouldn't be considered part of the rules is because they're explicitly not, just like the flavor text in spell descriptions isn't considered a rules mechanic. Support that. -------------------------------------------------- There are only two possibilities: You believe that only purely literal interpretations are correct. In which case, my pedantic "Familiar Companion" vs "Companion Familiar" point actually stands: It is a Familiar because "Familiar Companion" is, in a purely literal reading, not the name but rather descriptive text that defines it as both a Companion and a Familiar. OR.... You are willing to be reasonable, and admit the supremacy of the paradigm of Authors Intent. In which case, it is obviously a Familiar because the name demonstrates Author's Intent. Either way, it is a Familiar.
magebeast 05-22-07, 06:58 PM	Support that. -------------------------------------------------- There are only two possibilities: You believe that only purely literal interpretations are correct. In which case, my pedantic "Familiar Companion" vs "Companion Familiar" point actually stands: It is a Familiar because "Familiar Companion" is, in a purely literal reading, not the name but rather descriptive text that defines it as both a Companion and a Familiar. OR.... You are willing to be reasonable, and admit the supremacy of the paradigm of Authors Intent. In which case, it is obviously a Familiar because the name demonstrates Author's Intent. Either way, it is a Familiar. There's option 3, actually. If it doesn't replace your familiar then you can summon another familiar after a year because you don't have one. Nothing in the text prevents that.
Timlagor 05-22-07, 07:07 PM	Because I don't view either of your possibilities as correct. If you view the spirit of the rules that the Arcane Hierophant is sacrificing his familiar in exchange for boosting his animal companion in some very specific ways, then he can't summon it back. Those ways are listed. It resembles a familiar in some aspects(access to the chart), but other than that, it isn't a familiar. Invoking "spririt of the rules" to prevent someone summoning another familiar is no stronger than invoking it to say that the Af is a familiar and therefore targettable with these spells... with the added disadvantage that your version is completely unsupported by the text.
Mommy was an Orc 05-22-07, 07:08 PM	Support that. -------------------------------------------------- There are only two possibilities: You believe that only purely literal interpretations are correct. In which case, my pedantic "Familiar Companion" vs "Companion Familiar" point actually stands: It is a Familiar because "Familiar Companion" is, in a purely literal reading, not the name but rather descriptive text that defines it as both a Companion and a Familiar. OR.... You are willing to be reasonable, and admit the supremacy of the paradigm of Authors Intent. In which case, it is obviously a Familiar because the name demonstrates Author's Intent. Either way, it is a Familiar. Monstrous Humanoids are not Persons for purposes of Enlarge Person despite Humanoids being affected. Half-Fiends and Fiendish creatures are not Outsiders(Evil) despite being Evil and Outsiders. You very might well think their name should be relevant, but it isn't.
JamesMaissen 05-22-07, 07:15 PM	Because I don't view either of your possibilities as correct. If you view the spirit of the rules that the Arcane Hierophant is sacrificing his familiar in exchange for boosting his animal companion in some very specific ways, then he can't summon it back. If the Familiar companion is his familiar then he can't summon another one as he already has one. If the Arcane Hierophant ability removed the Summon Familiar class ability then it too would prevent this. Is either the case? You don't believe the first is the case. And the second doesn't seem to have any support in the actual text. Those ways are listed. It resembles a familiar in some aspects(access to the chart), but other than that, it isn't a familiar. And since it doesn't say that it counts as a familiar, and the class ability hasn't been removed then you should then believe that an AH can summon another familiar to replace the one he needed to dismiss. But no one seems happy with this chain of logic. You claim there's a problem in the path. So where is it? To me the writing of the class is shoddy and I choose to believe that this familiar companion needs to count as both familiar and animal companion. A good deal of that conviction is that I see summoning another familiar as a very valid option if the companion familiar isn't a familiar. -James
Mithreinmaethor 05-22-07, 07:32 PM	I am totally against Arcane Elephants. I mean for the love of god. Ok sorry. Back to your thread.
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-23-07, 10:36 AM	Monstrous Humanoids are not Persons for purposes of Enlarge Person despite Humanoids being affected. Half-Fiends and Fiendish creatures are not Outsiders(Evil) despite being Evil and Outsiders. You very might well think their name should be relevant, but it isn't. On the strictly literal side, The rules for creature-types are far more explicitly spelled out than for what counts as a Familiar. (PHB p.306: "One of several broad categories of creatures. The Creature types are".... list including both Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid). The important words are "One of"... just one. Being one precludes being another. No equivalent text exists concerning being a Familiar and being anything else. Further, this is irrelevant as Monstrous Humanoid is a type-name, not descriptive text like "Familiar Companion". Remember only "Companion Familiar" is bolded and thus a name. Stupid, I know, but a lot arguments that can be made from a strictly literal point of view are pretty stupid. This is why Authors Intent is a better way. On the side of Authors Intent, it is does not fly because of a lack of context suggesting that they are humanoids. The MM entry says they are "similar to humanoids" but that's as close as we get, and must be taken in the context of the creature-type rules quoted above. The text of Companion Familiars has a very different context: the fact that the AH is supposed to be the combining of two different magical traditions, the fact that it gets Familiar abilities, the fact that you have to dismiss any existing familiar, the absence of well-defined creature-type-like rules or explicit text or saying it is not what it is Named. In this context, the Name is strong support of it being a Familiar. The only argument against it being a Familiar is that one of the ingredients in making it is an Animal Companion base creature. Even then the argument only makes sense from a strictly literal point of view, if we cherry-pick out the name, cherry-pick out the word-order issue, try to avoid even thinking about Authors Intent, and add text to the effect that you lose the ability to summon a familiar!
Mommy was an Orc 05-23-07, 11:28 AM	The only argument against it being a Familiar is that one of the ingredients in making it is an Animal Companion base creature. Even then the argument only makes sense from a strictly literal point of view, if we cherry-pick out the name, cherry-pick out the word-order issue, try to avoid even thinking about Authors Intent, and add text to the effect that you lose the ability to summon a familiar! That's hilarious. The only way you can actually justify it being a familiar is to be strictly literal about the name and ignore the authors intent. The author repeatedly calls it an animal companion. He spells out what familiar abilities you gain on top of it - which is the chart. He doesn't at any point simply call it a familiar, such as Improved Familiar does in each variation. He has ample opportunity to do so in the sentence: "In addition, your animal companion(if any) gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess." Anyone who can read that sentence and claim that the author's intent is for it to be a familiar in all ways is beyond belief.
JamesMaissen 05-23-07, 03:01 PM	That's hilarious. The only way you can actually justify it being a familiar is to be strictly literal about the name and ignore the authors intent. Anyone who can read that sentence and claim that the author's intent is for it to be a familiar in all ways is beyond belief. So you then DO believe that an Arcane Hierophant CAN summon a familiar after the required period has passed from dismissing his familiar? If not, why not? -James
Mommy was an Orc 05-23-07, 03:33 PM	So you then DO believe that an Arcane Hierophant CAN summon a familiar after the required period has passed from dismissing his familiar? Not via intent, no. Literally reading the text, sure. But that doesn't change the end result(no familiar) 'becoming X' usually means 'as long as one is X' in D&D. Example: "If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming X..." If you summon another familiar, you'd have to immediately dismiss it just as you couldn't go Bard 9/Ruathar 1/Sublime Chord 2/Ruathar 2-3 and advance both Bard and Sublime Chord with Ruathar 2 and 3. Despite not having 2 spellcasting classes before becoming a Ruathar.
JamesMaissen 05-23-07, 05:20 PM	Not via intent, no. Literally reading the text, sure. But that doesn't change the end result(no familiar) So then you think that from a literal reading of AH that the Familiar Companion should not count as a familiar, but the end result should be that they are still treated as one? That didn't seem to be your position. I don't follow how you evidently think that one should not be tied to the other. -James
Mommy was an Orc 05-23-07, 05:38 PM	So then you think that from a literal reading of AH that the Familiar Companion should not count as a familiar, but the end result should be that they are still treated as one? That didn't seem to be your position. I don't follow how you evidently think that one should not be tied to the other. -James I have no idea what you're talking about in this post.
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-23-07, 05:42 PM	"In addition, your animal companion(if any) gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess." Anyone who can read that sentence and claim that the author's intent is for it to be a familiar in all ways is beyond belief. I applaud you for finally talking about Author's Intent. The authors described their intentions quite well when they wrote: that Arcane Hierophants have melded "two distinct magical traditions to create a potent new whole." (RotW P.110) "Potent new whole" does not mesh with the stance that the Companion Familiar is a vanilla animal companion with a few familiar abilities bolted to the side. Combine that with the name, and with the many pieces of context that I have previously listed and it becomes clear that this animal is intended to be both a Familiar and a Companion. I am, however, perfectly willing to admit that it is not sufficiently clearly written as to make an air-tight argument in either direction.
JamesMaissen 05-23-07, 09:42 PM	I have no idea what you're talking about in this post. Okay, either the Companion Familiar is a familiar or it is not. If it is not a familiar then as the class ability has not been removed the AH can summon a familiar after the year and a day have passed since the dismissing. What's wrong with that line of reasoning? If the AH cannot summon a new familiar after the year and a day then as they still have the class feature the only thing stopping that would be if they still have a familiar (ie cannot have more than one familiar even if multiple classes grant the feature). So which do you believe, or what fault do you find in the reasoning? -James
trollbill 05-24-07, 10:50 AM	I applaud you for finally talking about Author's Intent. The authors described their intentions quite well when they wrote: that Arcane Hierophants have melded "two distinct magical traditions to create a potent new whole." (RotW P.110) "Potent new whole" does not mesh with the stance that the Companion Familiar is a vanilla animal companion with a few familiar abilities bolted to the side. Combine that with the name, and with the many pieces of context that I have previously listed and it becomes clear that this animal is intended to be both a Familiar and a Companion. I am, however, perfectly willing to admit that it is not sufficiently clearly written as to make an air-tight argument in either direction. That is a moot statement. "New" means something it wasn't before. If you are going to use that statement as evidence it would suggest that a Familiar Companion is neither a Animal Companion, nor a Familiar with no more greater probibility of one than the other. Making it an irrelavent arguement. Part of the problem with your argument is that you are using intent for part of it and RAW for another part. The argument needs to be supported in whole, either by intent, by RAW or by both at the same time. The 'intent' of the 'lose your familiar' rule would seem to be a cost for gaining this ability, based on other precidents set by the rules. Given that it is a cost, and that you do not lose the Companion Familiar ability if you regain a familiar, it would seem the intent would be that you can never get one. The 'intent' of the Companion Familiar ability seems to be to give you a Animal Companion with some Familiar abilities, because the body of the text never refers to it as anything other than a Companion. Obviously, you seem to think that the intent implied by the name of the ability far outweighs the numerous references otherwise in the body of the description, but precedent doesn't support you on that.
Mommy was an Orc 05-24-07, 11:55 AM	Okay, either the Companion Familiar is a familiar or it is not. Where's the rules text that backs up that assertion? According to the rules text it is an animal companion with many of the abilities of a familiar, but it also forces you to dismiss your familiar. So in some ways, it is a familiar, and in other ways it isn't. Is it an actual familiar? No. Does it prevent you from having an actual familiar? Yes. Not all abilities are a benefit in every possible way. Do you refuse to build characters with Rage because it impacts your AC? If it is not a familiar then as the class ability has not been removed the AH can summon a familiar after the year and a day have passed since the dismissing. What's wrong with that line of reasoning? That's not typically the meaning of 'before becoming X' in D&D 3.0/3.5. 'before becoming X' is used to mean both prior to becoming X and while X. So if you summoned up another familiar, you'd have to immediately dismiss it.
JamesMaissen 05-24-07, 01:25 PM	Where's the rules text that backs up that assertion? That something either is A or is not A? Are you serious? Is it an actual familiar? No. Does it prevent you from having an actual familiar? Yes. Okay... Let's try this. Your argument for spells with target 'your familiar' not applying to the Familiar Companion is that it is not a familiar, just something with abilities from the familiar table. If it's not officially a familiar, the class doesn't remove the ability to summon a new familiar, and doesn't remove the class feature then WHAT prevents 'you from having an actual familiar'? Sure you have to dismiss your original familiar. But while it alters the normal dismissing rules to remove the xp penalty, it doesn't remove the ability to summon a new one. I'm sorry I'm still stuck on it's either A or it's not A being a problem for you. The only possibilities are the Familiar Companion counts as a familiar or it does not. You say it does not. Fine. Now where does it say that an AH can't summon a familiar? -James
King Kashue 05-24-07, 01:44 PM	That something either is A or is not A? Are you serious? That is not the sum of your contention however. You are not saying "It's either fully a familiar or it's something else", you're saying "It's either fully a familiar or it's not a familiar at all"...Your contention is a false dilemma. As MwaO and several others have contended, the idea is that it is not fully a familiar, but it does have many characteristics of a familiar (which are explicitly numerated, and which do not include counting as a familiar for familiar only spells). If it's not officially a familiar, the class doesn't remove the ability to summon a new familiar, and doesn't remove the class feature then WHAT prevents 'you from having an actual familiar'? Sure you have to dismiss your original familiar. But while it alters the normal dismissing rules to remove the xp penalty, it doesn't remove the ability to summon a new one. I'm sorry I'm still stuck on it's either A or it's not A being a problem for you. The only possibilities are the Familiar Companion counts as a familiar or it does not. You say it does not. Fine. Now where does it say that an AH can't summon a familiar? Are you intentionally ignoring where he's answered this at least twice? That's not typically the meaning of 'before becoming X' in D&D 3.0/3.5. 'before becoming X' is used to mean both prior to becoming X and while X. So if you summoned up another familiar, you'd have to immediately dismiss it. Here's the thing. Familiar only spells (which is nominally the issue here, and at the least the only one I care about). They list the following criteria: "Target: Familiar touched" Now, the Improved familiar feat repeatedly and explicitly calls the creature you gain "a familiar", so no worries there, it's a valid target. The familiar companion ability on the other hand does not call the creature "a familiar" anywhere in the text, though it does explicitly call it an animal companion several times. Names are important, though not in the way VoR thinks. As MwaO has pointed out, Monstrous Humanoids don't count as humanoids, despite having the word in their name. When the target of a spell is "familiar", the "Companion familiar" or "Familiar companion" don't qualify on their face, and since the rules text lacks anything saying otherwise, then they are not valid targets for familiar-only spells. This is supported by the fact that the text does explicitly make an exception regarding spells that affect normal animals (since the companion familiar no longer qualifies and needs a specific exemption). If we're attempting to evaluate 'intent', the fact that the text makes one specific exemption, but doesn't make another seems a pretty strong indicator that they didn't intend the latter exemption.
Mommy was an Orc 05-24-07, 02:50 PM	Now where does it say that an AH can't summon a familiar? Technically, doesn't say that at all. Practically speaking, upon becoming an AH, you must dismiss your familiar. So if you summoned up another one, you'd have to get rid of it immediately. Upon becoming is not used in D&D to mean 'at the precise moment you start being', it is used to mean 'once you are' - as Arcane Hierophant itself does in the rules text for their spell advancement. As an example in a sentence: "Upon becoming a police officer, one should strive to be a role model."
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-24-07, 03:13 PM	That is a moot statement. "New" means something it wasn't before. If you are going to use that statement as evidence it would suggest that a Familiar Companion is neither a Animal Companion, nor a Familiar with no more greater probibility of one than the other. Making it an irrelavent arguement. On the contrary, it is exactly relevant... "Potent New Whole" supports the idea that the Authors Intended the Companion Familiar to be Both, or Neither but not just one. The word "whole" is the important one, as oppossed to 'combination of parts'. Part of the problem with your argument is that you are using intent for part of it and RAW for another part. The argument needs to be supported in whole, either by intent, by RAW or by both at the same time. Go back, and read my posts more carefully. Although I've argued within both paradigms, none of my Author's Intent points rely upon my RAW points or vice versa. I've been very careful to segregate the RAW arguments from the Author's Intent arguments. I've also made it clear that I consider Author's Intent to be the more valid Rules Interpretation stance. The 'intent' of the 'lose your familiar' rule would seem to be a cost for gaining this ability, based on other precidents set by the rules. Given that it is a cost, and that you do not lose the Companion Familiar ability if you regain a familiar, it would seem the intent would be that you can never get one. The 'intent' of the Companion Familiar ability seems to be to give you a Animal Companion with some Familiar abilities, because the body of the text never refers to it as anything other than a Companion. You can't read the body of the text outside of CONTEXT. It is referred to as an Animal Companion only as a function of how to construct its stats. Much the same way as instructions to make an pastry might make reference to eggs, flour, butter, ovens, and the like. Once you cook it up, it's not just flour with egg abilities, but a "potent new whole": a pastry. Likewise, once the abilities of the familiar are added to it, the Authors stop referring to it as an Animal Companion but rather as a Familiar Companion. That change in how it is described is evidence that the Authors Intended it to become a Familiar at and after that stage of its construction. Although the variable word order is mostly a RAW argument, it also DOES have some relevance to the Authors Intent: It suggests they didn't care which order "Familiar" or "Companion" came in because they were equal descriptors. Although you interpret the dismissal of the Familiar as evidence that the Authors Intended the AH to pay a cost to improve his Companion, I see it as evidence that one's Familiar must now BE a Companion. Obviously, you seem to think that the intent implied by the name of the ability far outweighs the numerous references otherwise in the body of the description, but precedent doesn't support you on that. Once it has been named a Familiar, the assumption is that it is a Familiar unless words to the effect of "This is not actually a Familiar." are present. The name only shifts the burden of proof. You make it sound like the Author's Intent side of the discussion as it stands is: The name says it is Familiar, but everything else says it's not. Actually, the Author's Intent side of the discussion stands at: The name says it is a Familiar, numerous other contextual facts suggest it was Intended to be a Familiar, and nothing says it is not, except the first half of the Companion Familiar construction rules if taken out of the CONTEXT of the second half of the construction rules by which point it has stopped being just an Animal Companion. There are consistent, but not definitive arguments in either direction on the dismiss Familiar point.
trollbill 05-24-07, 04:22 PM	I've also made it clear that I consider Author's Intent to be the more valid Rules Interpretation stance. Which is only true if the intent clearly contradicts the RAW. It is only your supposition that it does because I sure as heck don't see the intent you do. Which, I think, by definition means it isn't clear that it does contradict it. You can't read the body of the text outside of CONTEXT. It is referred to as an Animal Companion only as a function of how to construct its stats. Much the same way as instructions to make an pastry might make reference to eggs, flour, butter, ovens, and the like. Once you cook it up, it's not just flour with egg abilities, but a "potent new whole": a pastry. Likewise, once the abilities of the familiar are added to it, the Authors stop referring to it as an Animal Companion but rather as a Familiar Companion. That change in how it is described is evidence that the Authors Intended it to become a Familiar at and after that stage of its construction. Which is purely all supposition on your part. I just went through and reread all the text on this. He refers to it as an animal companion and a familiar companion and a magical beast. And he says it gets some of the abilities of a familiar. He never says or implies it is a familiar. And there is one decided point against it being one. They don't share the same link as one, since the AH does not suffer the same penalty for losing a familiar as he does for losing an Familiar Companion. In fact, he gets a new one the exact same way he would get an Animal Companion. Although the variable word order is mostly a RAW argument, it also DOES have some relevance to the Authors Intent: It suggests they didn't care which order "Familiar" or "Companion" came in because they were equal descriptors. Once it has been named a Familiar, the assumption is that it is a Familiar unless words to the effect of "This is not actually a Familiar." are present. The name only shifts the burden of proof. And if he actually named it that, you might have a point. The name of the ability that gives you a Familiar Companion is called Companion Familiar, not the creature itself. The author never refers to the creature as a familiar. You make it sound like the Author's Intent side of the discussion as it stands is: The name says it is Familiar, but everything else says it's not. 1) The author never names it a familiar. The name of the ability you get at 1st level AH is called Companion Familiar. The creature itself is never called that anywhere in the text. Don't confuse the name of the ability with the name of the creature. 2) Everything else says, in the text that is written, that it is a Companion. 3) Nothing in the text specifies it is a Familiar. All you have is implication. And I might add, just the sort of implication the rules often use when describing one creature's ability compared to another, i.e. the statement usually exist for comparison purposes, not identification purposes. Saying a vague implication, backed up by an ability name you have taken out of context to be the name of the creature is a pretty weak argument for contradicting what the text actually says.
JamesMaissen 05-25-07, 01:43 AM	That is not the sum of your contention however. You are not saying "It's either fully a familiar or it's something else", you're saying "It's either fully a familiar or it's not a familiar at all"...Your contention is a false dilemma. As MwaO and several others have contended, the idea is that it is not fully a familiar, but it does have many characteristics of a familiar (which are explicitly numerated, and which do not include counting as a familiar for familiar only spells). Would you prefer the phrase 'counts as'? I mean something is either a familiar or it is not. Your whole point is that the Companion Familiar is not a familiar but only has some of the abilities of one. Are you intentionally ignoring where he's answered this at least twice? No, I'm not. I'm just trying to get it laid out straight. If, as you claim, the Companion Familiar is not a familiar, then the AH does not have a familiar having dismissed the one he had. The rules for dismissing a familiar would apply as normal. What's wrong with that? Now we have the claim (by another poster) that the dismissing is somehow a constant effect. But I don't see that as the case, nor any support for that. The AH was merely required to perform an action (dismissing a familiar) and the exemption to that was only upon loss of xp and nothing more. If we're attempting to evaluate 'intent', the fact that the text makes one specific exemption, but doesn't make another seems a pretty strong indicator that they didn't intend the latter exemption. I wholeheartedly agree. So, if we accept your premise that the Companion Familiar is not a familiar then the AH does not have a familiar. Yet after a year and a day he can summon one, and while it makes an exemption from the xp loss it doesn't make any exemption about not being able to summon a new familiar as per normal rules after dismissing one. Thus from your premise is the result that an AH can summon a familiar after a year and a day and have both a Familiar Companion and a Familiar. Right? -James PS: I may not like this result, but I see it as hand in hand with the Companion Familiar not being a Familiar. I find it strange that others are willing to accept one without the other.
Mommy was an Orc 05-25-07, 09:37 AM	Now we have the claim (by another poster) that the dismissing is somehow a constant effect. But I don't see that as the case, nor any support for that. The AH was merely required to perform an action (dismissing a familiar) and the exemption to that was only upon loss of xp and nothing more. It is the exact same language used to describe what happens if you have two arcane spellcasting classes before becoming an Arcane Hierophant. Surely, you are not arguing that the language of the 2nd paragraph of every section on advancing a spellcasting via PrCs only applies if you had two spellcasting classes before becoming one, and not after?
The_Voice_Of_Reason 05-25-07, 02:21 PM	Which (primacy of Author's Intent) is only true if the intent clearly contradicts the RAW. It is only your supposition that it does because I sure as heck don't see the intent you do. Which, I think, by definition means it isn't clear that it does contradict it. By RAW it is a Familiar because "familiar companion" is descriptive text not a name like "Companion Familiar". Your contention, implied below, that the creature CAN some how have a different from the name of the ability is laughable even by RAW standards, and demonstratively false because "familiar companion" is not capitalized as a name. Therefore it is not a name but descriptive text. Which is purely all supposition on your part. I just went through and reread all the text on this. He refers to it as an animal companion and a familiar companion and a magical beast. And he says it gets some of the abilities of a familiar. He never says or implies it is a familiar. Of course it is supposition. It is imposable to discuss the Author's Intent without supposing what they intended!:detect: And there is one decided point against it being one. They don't share the same link as one, since the AH does not suffer the same penalty for losing a familiar as he does for losing an Familiar Companion. In fact, he gets a new one the exact same way he would get an Animal Companion. This is an interesting point, but hardly conclusive. Mommy was an Orc conveniently proved that Improved Familiars are, in fact, Familiars despite the fact that they don't get the full set of Familiar qualities. Therefore, the loss of any given quality is not evidence that it is not a Familiar. As far as Author's Intent is concerned it is just as convincing that that because its Intelligence score is higher it is no longer an Animal Companion. And if he actually named it that, you might have a point. The name of the ability that gives you a Familiar Companion is called Companion Familiar, not the creature itself. The author never refers to the creature as a familiar. On the RAW side, I'm Laughing out Loud at the idea that "familiar companion" is the name of the creature while "Companion Familiar" is just the name of the ability that grants the creature. If "familiar companion" were a name it would have been capitalized. Your line of reasoning even if that weren't the case, to follow it to its logical extension, every other name of a skill, feat, ability, or spell is only coincidentally also the name of the effect/use/casting of those skills feats abilities and spells! Further, if you are right, then it also means that it is not an Animal Companion with Familiar abilities but rather a Familiar Companion, bringing us right back to the Both, Neither, but not just one situation. On the Author's Intent Side, the capitalization point is still valid. Further, your probably wrong, supposition that "familiar companion" might also be a name becomes further evidence that The Authors intentionally named it a familiar non-randomly... after-all they would have done it twice! No matter how you slice it, the variable word-order adds up to Authors intent that it is a familiar. 1) The author never names it a familiar. The name of the ability you get at 1st level AH is called Companion Familiar. The creature itself is never called that anywhere in the text. Don't confuse the name of the ability with the name of the creature. Yes they did. We have to remember that this is not C++. In computer languages, variable names are just unique content-less labels. They are this way because computers don't understand Meaning. In D&D the rules are not interpreted by computers, but rather by humans (every single one of which comes equipped with a brain). In D&D, Names are composed of Words which in turn have Meaning. The Authors could have named it a Hierophant Companion, or a Arcane Companion, or even Tweaked Critter. They Chose to use the word Familiar, therefore they Meant it! 2) Everything else says, in the text that is written, that it is a Companion. "Everything else" = Everything except: 1. The Name. 2. The descriptive text "familiar companion". 3. The probable intention that it was not supposed to co-exist with a traditional Familiar (see James's line of discussion). 4. The presence of Familiar abilities. 5. The stated intention that the AH's abilities would constitute a "potent new whole." 6. The fact that it stops being called an Animal Companion after the addition of Familiar abilities. Sure, outside of all of that annoying CONTEXT, it must seem very cut and dried to you! 3) Nothing in the text specifies it is a Familiar. Nothing in the text specifies, in context, that it is not a Familiar. We have the name. We have many independent and consistent lines of reasoning that suggest that the Authors intended it to be a familiar.