My point was that in that case the first level bloodline power is affected by both archetypes, albeit in different ways. By rules, archetypes that both affect the same ability are incompatible (for clarity, I will refer to this rule as the 'incompatibility rule'.
Whether the way in which the wildblooded archetype affects the bloodline power (i.e. by replacing it with another bloodline power, and giving the bloodline a different name) itself creates a new bloodline is arguably a separate topic (which is being debated). That is, both potential conclusions to the debate are consistent with the incompatibility rule, and would cause it to be invoked in the case of attempting to make a hypothetical sanguine tattooed sorcerer.
I'll just leave this here
On Sage, the FAQ mentioned
"because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power"
You should have quoted it. :)
Sorcerer: Does a sorcerer with the sage bloodline (page 72) use her Int or Cha to determine uses per day of arcane bolt?
The sage sorcerer uses her Int to determine the number of daily uses of her bloodline powers, including arcane bolt. Therefore, whether arcane bolt lists Int or Cha, the sage sorcerer still uses her Int.
The bloodline power lists Cha because that's the standard terminology for sorcerer bloodlines (because all other sorcerers use Cha), and because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power, in which case it should be based on Cha (like other sorcerer bloodline powers) instead of Int.—Sean K Reynolds, 07/14/11
That way is the Eldritch Feats, it seems. :)
My point was that in that case the first level bloodline power is affected by both archetypes, albeit in different ways. By rules, archetypes that both affect the same ability are incompatible (for clarity, I will refer to this rule as the 'incompatibility rule'.
So you see the entire bloodline as 'modified', so you would not allow wildblooded with an archetype if that archetype modified any of the bloodline, even parts where the mutant bloodline is the same as the standard one?
-James
He said "the first level bloodline power is affected by bother archetypes." It seems that if you had a wildblooded archetype that didn't affect the same powers as the other archetype then it would work.
Personally I think they should just FAQ wildblooded to function identically to subdomains and eliminate all of this confusion but I don't think that'll happen =P
I'll just leave this here
On Sage, the FAQ mentioned
"because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power"
You should have quoted it. :)
That way is the Eldritch Feats, it seems. :)Sorcerer: Does a sorcerer with the sage bloodline (page 72) use her Int or Cha to determine uses per day of arcane bolt?
The sage sorcerer uses her Int to determine the number of daily uses of her bloodline powers, including arcane bolt. Therefore, whether arcane bolt lists Int or Cha, the sage sorcerer still uses her Int.
The bloodline power lists Cha because that's the standard terminology for sorcerer bloodlines (because all other sorcerers use Cha), and because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power, in which case it should be based on Cha (like other sorcerer bloodline powers) instead of Int.—Sean K Reynolds, 07/14/11
Or bloatmage or a Sanguine elixer the latter being far more common I would think than heritage or bloatmage.
If a wildblooded bloodline, is not a bloodline, than a Robes of Arcane Heritage will not function for a wildblooded sorcerer.
You mean exactly how the Gloves of Dueling don't work for most fighter Archtypes in the same way the work for a fighter? GASP!!!!
Yes somethings might change others might not it still doesn't change the fact that Mutated Bloodlines are gotten through an archetype.
On Sage, the FAQ mentioned
"because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power"You should have quoted it. :)
...That way is the Eldritch Feats, it seems. :)
This is already answered.
The two means posted don't specify 'sorceror bloodline' like Eldritch Heritage does.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...It's clear to me that Wildblooded Sorcerors still have their original chosen Sorceror Bloodline, and count as having it for any effect that cares about it... The Archetype doesn't REMOVE their Sorceror Bloodline, it just modifies some powers of it... Just like an Archetype of Class X still counts as Class X even though some Class Abilities are different.
...it still doesn't change the fact that Mutated Bloodlines are gotten through an archetype.
As I see it:
Wildblooded Archetype Sorcerors explicitly still select Sorceror Bloodlines for their Sorceror Bloodline.A class ability of their Archetype modifies some abilities of that Bloodline.
Eldritch Heritage is giving you the same choice re: selection of a Sorceror Bloodline that Sorcerors have.
Which, love it or hate it, doesn't include applying the Archetype modifications to a Sorceror Bloodline,
it means selecting a Sorceror Bloodline, amazingly enough.
Please yall, hit FAQ!
All I can say is read the post again. We all agree they are bloodline, they just aren't 'sorcerer bloodlines'. We're not adding 'mutant', the table specifically identifies them as 'mutant bloodlines'.
Period...
In what way is a "mutant bloodline" not a "sorcerer bloodline"? It even calls out specifically that they are sorcerer bloodlines in the description of Wildblooded.
Or bloatmage or a Sanguine elixer the latter being far more common I would think than heritage or bloatmage.
Can't use Sanguine Elixir, remember? Cause that requires a "bloodline" and the counter argument is that a "mutant bloodline" is not the same as a "bloodline". I can't access Bloatmage right now but I suspect you'd run into a similar "problem" there.
The two means posted don't specify 'sorceror bloodline' like Eldritch Heritage does.
As opposed to what other kind of bloodline?
Mutated or if down the line they create a new type of bloodline called monstrous bloodline.
The fact is the feat specifies while the item and prestigage class don't.
Wildblooded
A wildblooded sorcerer has a mutated version of a more common bloodline, with one arcana and at least one bloodline power that are different from those of an unmutated bloodline.
It seems clear to me that common and unmutated bloodlines are the bloodlines in the CRB.
So according to the quote wildblooded sorcerers have a mutated version of a sorcerer bloodline. That still makes it a sorcerer bloodline, just one that is not as common.
I think Paizo is going to have to resort to very exact wording or start to say X qualifies as Y from now on.
So then I can just play a non wildblood sorcerer and take Slyvan as my bloodline?
And since I don't have an archetype modifying my bloodline I can now take Crossblooded?
Why not?
(for clarity's sake, I agree with wraithstrike)
So you think that the entire paragraph stating what being Wildblooded does for you is just fluff and that you aren't required to have it to cause your bloodline to mutate?
Can a regular fighter then choose to get the dragoons version of weapon Training for more damage?
I mean its just changing a few things on how one part of the class works and its still weapon training.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you think that the entire paragraph stating what being Wildblooded does for you is just fluff and that you aren't required to have it to cause your bloodline to mutate?
Yes, I do think that the fluff description is fluff. But more accurately, I think that the Sorcerer's "Wildblooded (Archetype)" isn't an archetype in the sense that other archetypes are. Other archetypes are more clearly written out. I think it is more of an archetype in the sense that subdomains for Clerics are in that you can choose any of these new options. It is my opinion that the developers really wanted a way to say, "Hey, we have these new bloodlines that are similar to the old bloodlines that are available. Since the new class options are being called "archetypes" why not just fit it in under that section?"
Can a regular fighter then choose to get the dragoons version of weapon Training for more damage?
Firstly, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, no, I do not think that. The fighter Archetypes are more clearly defined and this would directly violate the rule of not being able to take the base class options while taking the archetype options. On the other hand if there were a fighter feat that allowed you to take class abilities then, yes, I would think it were allowable if it were worded in a way similar to Eldrich Heritage.
FYI - these are the RAW answers. In a home game I would probably allow a player to take the Dragoon's option of Weapon Training instead. But I would be doing so acknowledging that it was a house rule.
So Archetype A changing how a class feature works then being called out as still being availble to anyone without having the archetype even the base class, but Archetype B changes only parts of a class feature but can't just be picked up by the base class?
So your saying an Archetype isn't an Archetype?
I think it is more of an archetype in the sense that subdomains for Clerics are in that you can choose any of these new options.
Except sub-domains are never classified as archetypes. Wildblooded is.
It is my opinion that the developers really wanted a way to say, "Hey, we have these new bloodlines that are similar to the old bloodlines that are available. Since the new class options are being called "archetypes" why not just fit it in under that section?"
That would be a really bonehead thing for the devs to do. Label something with a game term that doesn't apply to it. That would be like making a new Rage Power and calling it a feat. It wouldn't work as intended and would confuse everyone who read it.
It is my opinion that the devs are just a little more competent than that.
Yeah, cause Paizo has never done boneheaded things. ;) Sorry, I don't mean to slam Paizo, but we have all done things like that. It doesn't really seem so far fetched to me. In fact, it seems a lot less far fetched than the alternative.
So then I can just play a non wildblood sorcerer and take Slyvan as my bloodline?
And since I don't have an archetype modifying my bloodline I can now take Crossblooded?
That is not what I am saying. I am saying for the purposes of feats and things that affect bloodlines the mutated versions count.
In short mutated bloodline are just like the cleric's subdomains or the alternate wizard schools.
@ Lune So your arguement is that that they listed it as an archetype because there was no where else to put it even thought both sub-domains and variant channeling are both listed in the classes section of cleric but neither is listed as an archetype or under a big bold archetype name with relevenat text under that heading on how they work?
Yes, Talonhawke, that is exactly my argument. And I'm not alone in it either.
@ Lune So your arguement is that that they listed it as an archetype because there was no where else to put it even thought both sub-domains and variant channeling are both listed in the classes section of cleric but neither is listed as an archetype or under a big bold archetype name with relevenat text under that heading on how they work?
Lune's not alone, Talon. Personally, I've always though Power Attack was a Rogue Talent, and as such, only Rogues are allowed to take it.
/sarcasm
Oh, now my head hurts.
As Cheapy put it in another thread:
The author of Eldritch Heritage did not know about the wildblooded archetypes at the time he wrote EH. It's quite literally impossible for it to have been the intent that they could be taken.
At the same time, he'd probably allow it now that he knows about them, but his company's motto is "we err on the side of awesome." ;)
I totally agree with that. If it is true that the author of Eldritch Heritage didn't know about Wildblooded Archetypes then it is entirely possible (even likely) that when Wildblooded Archetypes was written that it wasn't done so with the intention of making it compatible with the earlier produced work. But that doesn't mean that this was purposeful, it could have been a simple mistake or an accidental omission.
It is my opinion that it was neither, though. My opinion is that it is made to work with those bloodlines. I think it is far more likely that when the Wildblooded Archetypes were written that the wording was just a bit messy but not made to be specifically to disclude their use with Eldritch Heritage. If it were then I think it would be a lot more clear in it's description.
I will concede that my opinion isn't the only possible chain of events. Even so, I think that if it isn't that the "accidental omission" theory is still far more likely that the "specifically discluded" theory that is being proposed here.
Either way, we will not know for sure without developer intervention. But note that of the three theories, two of them allow it.
Both Eldritch Heritage and Wildblooded are a part of Ultimate Magic, one didn't really come before the other. Different people developed each separately at probably around the same time and they got put into the same book without the issue of their compatibility ever coming up.
I think that was Cheapy's point. They were written independently of each other and that if you got the authors together they would probably say that they are compatible even though they were not written with compatibility in mind.
I think that was Cheapy's point. They were written independently of each other and that if you got the authors together they would probably say that they are compatible even though they were not written with compatibility in mind.
Perhaps they would. But, barring that, the only way to determine if they do work together is to examine the actual letter of the rules.
The rules classify Wildblooded as an Archetype, regardless of intent, and that's all we have to work with.
So I'm confused, Quantum Steve. Do you or do you not think that they work together? Your first post on the topic seemed to indicate that you thought they would. But you have said things on both sides of the argument.
That's why we should all go to the original post and FAQ it up! >.>
I've FAQed all 3 threads. ;)
There are THREE threads? I can't keep up with them all :P!
For those interested in James Jacobs' take, I asked this question of him:
"Are the wildblooded bloodlines bloodlines in their own right? Would you be able to select wildblooded bloodlines with the Eldritch Heritage feats and would a wildblooded sorcerer be able to utilise a Robe of Arcane Heritage?"
His answer:
"No, they aren't. That's why they're not listed as bloodlines, but instead listed as archetypes. Things like Eldritch Heritage and that robe would work off of the associated non-mutated bloodline's rules, and would likely need your GM's adjudication to clear up problems should they arise. "
If we take James' opinion to be the correct ruling (which I am inclined to, but I understand some people question this), then technically there is no "wildblooded archetype", but rather "wildblooded archetypes" is a collective term for a group of archetypes that each apply to specific bloodlines. For instance, the sanguine archetype is an archetype specifically and only available to sorcerers with the undead bloodline.
/facepalm
Why are people asking James to clear up rules questions when that is the purview of developers?
So he says Eldritch Heritage + Wildblooded isn't a valid official option?
So I'm confused, Quantum Steve. Do you or do you not think that they work together? Your first post on the topic seemed to indicate that you thought they would. But you have said things on both sides of the argument.
I actually hadn't made up my mind yet when I posted that. Now, I think I have.
As I posted in the other thread, (which I shouldn't be doing shame on me):
The mutant bloodlines aren't full fledged bloodlines. They're "archetypes," if you will, of existing bloodlines. You can't take them without taking the Wildblooded archetype.
Now, if a Wildblooded Sorcerer were to take Eldritch Heritage for a bloodline he doesn't have, that would work because he has the archetype. That works both ways, though, a Wildblooded Sorcerer would not be able to use Eldritch Heritage to take a regular bloodline with an associated mutant, the Wildblooded archetype would change the blooline powers.
Well, I might as well say it here. I think James is wrong on this one. It isn't that I don't value his opinion but I would value the opinion of a developer more.
I've been reading a lot about Eldritch Heritage and the Sylvan bloodline and every other way to get an animal companion I could find; I want to make a rogue with an animal companion >.>
Anyway, from what I'm reading the general consensus seems to be that you can't use Eldritch Heritage for Sylvan since it's level 1 power also counts as it's arcana, and you don't get the arcana from the feat. (Note, I haven't found any dev responses; it says it "replaces" the power but "counts" as the arcana, the difference and how this would interact with Eldritch Heritage isn't entirely clear). Furthermore, there is nothing that indicates you can take Wildblooded archetype bloodlines with Eldritch Heritage.
I'm thinking I might try to convince my DM to let me take Eldritch Heritage with the Sylvan bloodline if I take a 1 level dip into sorcerer to get that bloodline anyway (and it's arcana), simply using Eldritch Heritage to allow the bloodline power (animal companion) to continue to gain strength as I level up as a rogue. This might bypass the issue of gaining an arcana from a feat, since I'll already have the arcana.
So, is this a legitimate way to work using Eldritch Heritage to gain an animal companion that grows with my total level (-5) rather than any particular class level? Or, more generally: How does Eldritch Heritage interact on a character who already has the same bloodline chosen from normal sorcerer levels?
Edit: People have answered the final question above, it is answered very clearly in the Eldritch Heritage feat. However, the exact rules on how Wildblooded bloodlines, Eldritch Heritage, and Sylvan Bloodline in particular interact are still unclear. Just thought I'd update the original post to reflect what has and hasn't been answered.
Couldn't you play an urban ranger with a animal companion? They get trapfinding.
@Doubleplusgood, I already said ranger would probably be the best solution to that on the first page =P
As for James' response, I'll take it for now but I'd still like to see what the writers of Eldritch Heritage / Wildblooded think about it o.o
Well sadly at this point its going to be less of what the writers wanted or thought and more about what the devs feel is balanced I can think of two instances where when we heard from the writer of an archetype or ability the final product was much different. Those two being the titan mauler and prone shooter.
Titan maular was meant to allow use of bigger weapons but that didn't quite make it in the rules.
And prone shooter i believe was meant to grant a bonus on shooting from prone but the final write up does absolutly nothing.
Best way to get a level-appropriate animal creature by your side would actually be 4 levels of cavalier, then get the horse master feat (which can apply to creatures other than horses). Your new buddy will be called a 'mount' rather than an animal companion, but mechanically there's no difference. And you'd use your HD to determine its abilities.
Has anyone really thought about what the fluff reasoning behind Eldritch Heritage not working with Wildblooded would be? Not that this has a lot of bearing on RAW, but it does grant some perspective on the reasoning behind RAW.
Has anyone really thought about what the fluff reasoning behind Eldritch Heritage not working with Wildblooded would be? Not that this has a lot of bearing on RAW, but it does grant some perspective on the reasoning behind RAW.
More importantly, why have the wildblooded archetype at all? Other than to just be able to go "look, we have sorcerer archetypes too!"
See, thats kinda what my point of it was. It really seems more like they wanted to introduce alternatives to existing bloodlines rather than make actual archetypes.
Thats what I was going for with the whole "Hey, we have these new bloodlines that are similar to the old bloodlines that are available. Since the new class options are being called "archetypes" why not just fit it in under that section?" thing.
See, thats kinda what my point of it was. It really seems more like they wanted to introduce alternatives to existing bloodlines rather than make actual archetypes.
Thats what I was going for with the whole "Hey, we have these new bloodlines that are similar to the old bloodlines that are available. Since the new class options are being called "archetypes" why not just fit it in under that section?" thing.
I think the problem they are having, that the only class abilities an archetype could reasonably modify, for a sorcerer, is their bloodlines. I think the wildblooded bloodlines would make more sense if they had been presented the same way as subdomains. Specializations of existing bloodlines.
But that's not the path they took! Probably to be fair to sorcerers. I don't know. :)
I feel like that IS the path they took and then just put the "archetype" label on it.