| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hello,
I was rolling up an Archivist today when I noticed that the Loremaster ability that archivists get is considerably weaker than the one that normal bards get.
Does anyone know if this is intentional? It seems odd, since being able to make knowledge checks is, well, rather important for an archivist . . .
Also, does anyone know if Paizo ever clarified how taking 10 and taking 20 works for this ability? I rather wish they'd phrased it differently, heh . . .
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello,
I was rolling up an Archivist today when I noticed that the Loremaster ability that archivists get is considerably weaker than the one that normal bards get.
Does anyone know if this is intentional? It seems odd, since being able to make knowledge checks is, well, rather important for an archivist . . .
Also, does anyone know if Paizo ever clarified how taking 10 and taking 20 works for this ability? I rather wish they'd phrased it differently, heh . . .
That entry is intended as a modification to the normal Loremaster ability, not a replacement for it. The only difference is that you can take 20 1/day plus once for every 6 levels beyond 2nd, instead of every 6 levels beyond 5th. The rest of the ability works as is.
I should have included the phrase "This ability functions as normal, except [blah blah blah times per day]" or the sentence "This is otherwise identical to the bard class ability.
Sorry for any confusion, but that was the intent as I wrote the archetype - you just get loremaster 3 levels earlier than a normal bard. Other than that, it's the same.
Ah thank you! I made a similar question awhile ago. Glad to see it resolved!
Awesome, thanks so much!
I am necroing this thread and encouraging people to FAQ it to get this change implemented officially. The error has been outstanding for over a year.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says that this post was FAQed and has been added in the FAQ, but I can't find the ruling anywhere in the Advanced Player's Guide FAQ (which was updated just last month on the 19th of July). Am I just being blind or is it linked somewhere else?Hello,
I was rolling up an Archivist today when I noticed that the Loremaster ability that archivists get is considerably weaker than the one that normal bards get.
Does anyone know if this is intentional? It seems odd, since being able to make knowledge checks is, well, rather important for an archivist . . .
Also, does anyone know if Paizo ever clarified how taking 10 and taking 20 works for this ability? I rather wish they'd phrased it differently, heh . . .
That entry is intended as a modification to the normal Loremaster ability, not a replacement for it. The only difference is that you can take 20 1/day plus once for every 6 levels beyond 2nd, instead of every 6 levels beyond 5th. The rest of the ability works as is.
I should have included the phrase "This ability functions as normal, except [blah blah blah times per day]" or the sentence "This is otherwise identical to the bard class ability.
Sorry for any confusion, but that was the intent as I wrote the archetype - you just get loremaster 3 levels earlier than a normal bard. Other than that, it's the same.
Bump
Since the ability says it replaces versatile performance rather than lore master, there's not much to fix other than the fact that an archivist technically has two abilities called "lore master". For bonus confusion points, take some levels in the Loremaster prestige class.
Since the ability says it replaces versatile performance rather than lore master, there's not much to fix other than the fact that an archivist technically has two abilities called "lore master". For bonus confusion points, take some levels in the Loremaster prestige class.
For what it's worth, here is my take on this.
The APG archetypes are the earliest archetypes, and in those days the formatting wasn't as well established as it is now. Here is Mark Seifter on the subject.
...
Not all archetypes tell you what they alter, especially older ones before the idea to make altering clear even existed (they used to say they replaced things and then lead to confusion when it was really altering, or sometimes just say nothing). We've been trying to make sure we are thorough with the latest offerings in the RPG line.
...
Several other older archetypes had issues similar to this one. In UC, for example, the Myrmidarch Magus and Kensai Magus both listed an ability called Fighter Training that was an upgraded version of the already existing Fighter Training, but neither explicitly stated that this was altering or replacing the original ability. By today's strict reading that leaves them both with two versions of Fighter Training, but I don't think that was the original intent.
In my opinion the early authors were assuming readers would understand that the use of the same name indicated that this was a modification of the original ability rather than an entirely new one. Nowadays that is my the default assumption. I think that the author's post earlier in this thread supports this interpretation.
Now we have a more formal rules framework for archetypes and more precise writing guides for archetype authors, so this sort of thing is less common. I'll note that the Myrmidarch has since been extensively errata'd, and the Fighter Training ability now explicitly replaces the older version. (Sadly that made my Myrmidarch/Staff Magus illegal.) The Kensai and Archivist, so far, have not had wording changes, but I suspect that has been an oversight rather than a deliberate choice.
----------------------------------
On the "answered in FAQ" issue, there are two possibilities.
(1) It was just meant to say that no FAQ was required. As I recall it was used that way sometimes in the old days.
(2) It was referring to the last part of the OP regarding taking 10 or taking 20. I believe that was answered in this FAQ.