| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a ranger that does not get any bonus combat feats still select a combat style?
For example:
Combat Style Feat (Ex): At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.
He selects a combat style and then he chooses his bonus feats from that style.
...
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a wild stalker gains uncanny dodge as the barbarian's class feature. This ability replaces the ranger's 2nd-level combat style feat.
...
Wild Talents (Ex): At 6th level, a wild stalker can either take a rage power, or gains a +2 insight bonus into any one of the following skills: Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, Stealth, Survival, or Swim. The wild stalker can gain one of these two benefits again every five levels after 6th (to a maximum of 4 times at 20th level). This ability replaces the ranger's 6th-, 10th-, 14th-, and 18th-level combat style feat abilities.
As I read it, nothing took away the combat style just the bonus feats related to that style.
Aspect of the Beast
Whether by magic or a curse of your blood, some part of you is more beast than man.Prerequisite: wild shape class feature, see Special.
Benefit: Your bestial nature manifests itself in one of the following ways. You choose the manifestation when you choose the feat, and then you cannot change it.
Night Senses (Ex): If your base race has normal vision, you gain low-light vision. If your base race has low-light vision, you gain darkvision out to a range of 30 feet. If your base race has darkvision, the range of your darkvision increases by 30 feet.
Claws of the Beast (Ex): You grow a pair of claws. These claws are primary attacks that deal 1d4 points of damage (1d3 if you are Small).
Predator's Leap (Ex): You can make a running jump without needing to run 10 feet before you jump.
Wild Instinct (Ex): You gain a +2 bonus on initiative checks and a +2 bonus on Survival skill checks.
Special: A character that has contracted lycanthropy can take this feat without having to meet the prerequisites. A ranger who selects the natural weapon combat style can take this feat without having to meet the prerequisites (even if he does not select Aspect of the Beast as a bonus feat).
So if a ranger has the natural weapon combat style he can take Aspect of the Beast even if he never gets any bonus combat style feats.
Shapeshifter
...
Combat Style Feat (Ex): At 2nd level, a shapeshifter ranger must choose the natural weapon combat style.
It says you have to select the natural weapon combat style not that you must to have any bonus feats for that combat style.
So as I read it, ranger should be able to take both the Wild Stalker and Shapeshifter archtypes.
That same ranger should also be able to take the feat Aspect of the Beast as a regular feat gained at odd levels after his second ranger level when he selected the natural weapon combat style.
Am I incorrect on any of this?
Nope. The ability is explicitly called "combat style feat" - if you don't get any of combat style feats it means that you don't have that class feature and thus cannot pick anything that relies on it.
If you don't have any of the bonus combat style feats at all, you don't have a combat style.
Edited to be less combative.
I don't see that I was involved in any mental gymnastics. It looks more to me like mental gymnastics are required to disallow it.
The written rules pretty clearly demonstrate that the bonus combat style feats are a separate entity from the selected combat style.
Wild Stalker clearly eliminates the bonus feats but makes no mention of eliminate the combat style selection.
Shapeshifter clearly says you have to select the natural weapon combat style but does not say anything about requiring bonus feats.
I really can't see how you could justify disallowing it by the rules. However, if it is such a major point of contention, I will not pursue it at the game table.
I can't see anyone reliable on the boards agreeing with your position. I feel it's very clear to most that if you dont' have any combat style feats, you don't have a combat style. The rules are made to be taken with common sense, no some legalistic interpretation to glean the precise meaning.
No combat style bonus feats = no combat style.
You can await for othes to chime in, but I doubt they will feel differently.
When do I count as having a class feature?
You have a class feature when your class description tells you you gain that class feature, generally based on your level in that class (and perhaps altered by factors, see below).
If you have an archetype or other rules element that replaces that class feature, you do not have that class feature. For example, if your archetype replaces a rogue's sneak attack, you no longer have the sneak attack class feature (whether a requirement is as general as "sneak attack" or as specific as "sneak attack +1d6," you do not qualify for it).
If you have an archetype or other rules element that replaces part of a scaling class feature, or delays when you get that class feature, you do not have that class feature until you actually gain that class feature.
Example: If you have a fighter archetype that replaces weapon training 1 (but not weapon training 2, 3, and 4), you don't gain the weapon training 2 ability until fighter level 9, which means you don't have the weapon training class ability at all until you reach fighter level 9. Anything with "weapon training" or "weapon training class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 9.
Example: If you have a cleric archetype that replaces channel energy at level 1 (but not later increments of channel energy), you don't gain the channel energy ability until cleric level 3, which means you don't have the channel energy class feature until you reach cleric level 3. Anything with "channel energy" or "channel energy class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 3.
Example: If you have a witch archetype that replaces your hex at level 1 (but not later hexes, major hexes, or grand hexes), you don't gain your first hex ability until witch level 2, which means you don't have the hex class feature until you reach witch level 2. Anything with "hex" or "hex class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 2.
So no.
No, I don't have an agenda. I am not set on anything. I am just trying to find what is allowed. I brought this to the rules forum, because someone in the advice forum said he thought it wasn't allowed. He didn't sound all that certain, so I am asking.
I am actually not a player (or when GM) that is known for pushing the boundaries. Part of my joy is finding what can be done with what is clearly allowed. I never make builds that I know will be subject to table variation. {Well other than specific GM house rules of course.}
I am not a lawyer and don't think I've ever been accused of using a 'legalistic interpretation' of anything.
...No combat style bonus feats = no combat style. ...
I just don't see where you are getting this. They pretty clearly are not the same thing as written.
I am not the only one. I have seen people at PFS events and at least 1 guy at a home game that has a raging ranger with the aspect of the beast claws. I am quite sure none of those people think they are breaking the rules.
However, neither am I going to be talking to or turning in those other guys for doing something wrong. Because I don't think they are.
Edit: Clarification
.
.
So no...., see below).
If you have an archetype or other rules element that replaces that class feature, you do not have that class feature. For example, if your archetype replaces a rogue's sneak attack, ....
And if it had said it replaced the Combat Style, I would agree it was not allowed. It doesn't. It very specifically says it replaces the Bonus Combat Style Feats, which are a different thing.
And if it had said it replaced the Combat Style, I would agree it was not allowed. It doesn't. It very specifically says it replaces the Bonus Combat Style Feats, which are a different thing.If you have an archetype or other rules element that replaces that class feature, you do not have that class feature. For example, if your archetype replaces a rogue's sneak attack, ....So no.
FACEPALM.
You know, I edited my posts because I felt Nicos was right. I was being overly aggressive and combative at the time and you didn't deserve it, then. But this last post basically proves to me I was right about my initial feeling.
If you don't see why you're being "legalistic" and "have an agenda" or "set on the answer" with what you've written above...I just don't know.
I see nothing legalistic about what I wrote. I am not using odd or unusual definitions of words. Stringing words, phrases, or sentences together in odd combinations. I have used no jargon that is not a part of the common language usage. I tried very hard not to pull anything out of context. I thought I was putting sufficient context for everything I quoted. How is any of that legalistic?
I see nothing to indicate the intention is different from what I read into it. I know of at least 3 other people just in my area that read it and had the same interpretation that I did. No legalism or mental gymnastics needed. It seemed very clear to us. Next time I see them playing those characters, I may ask them about it. But I can't imagine any of those 3 folks thinking they were skirting the rules. (Well maybe one of the guys might be willing to dance on the edge.) Herolab also allows the archtypes to be combined. No, I do not count on Herolab to define the rules. But it shows that someone else thinks, in good faith, that it is permissible.
Ok, you could say I have an agenda if you define agenda as wanting to know if a concept I was considering is allowed.
I am not set on the answer. Maybe there was a statement or rule that I hadn't remembered. Or response from a developer that I had missed. If someone had showed me something that disallowed, that would be fine with me. All you've done is repeatedly state they are the same, when what is written clearly shows they are not the same.
But that is 3 or 4 people now in a row that said they wouldn't allow it, so (even if I don't know why) I am dropping the concept. I would say that is pretty much not set on the answer.
Claxon. Shut up. If ya want to take things personally, do it with someone who's making it personal. Someone like you, actually. He's asked to have the rules of a game clarified. A game. He then politely and non aggressively defended himself from your b!$*@!&#. Now shut up, apologize, or back off. Have some respect.
@Gruingar de'Morcaine Personally, it'd fly at my table. I've never read the Wild Stalker as disallowing Aspect of The Beast, and figure it's entirely against the archtypes spirit to prevent use of the feat. I'd argue it's only common sense to allow your build. If you have trouble with people accepting your build, you can always play a catfolk with the Catfolk Exemplar feat to allow use of Aspect of the Beast, BTW.
You can't separate "combat style" from "combat style feats".
The "combat style" only defines which list of bonus feats you can choose from. You choose a combat style, then choose a feat from the list for that combat style. If you don't get any bonus feats, choosing a combat style is completely meaningless. The term "combat style" has no useful definition outside of the bonus feats, and the class feature provides no other benefits and has no other mechanical effect.
...
OP: I think the part that you may be missing is that the ranger class feature isn't called Combat Style; it's called Combat Style Feat. Under that class feature, it's explained that having this class feature (called Combat Style Feat) involves choosing a combat style (lowercase).If something replaces the Combat Style Feat class feature, you can't use anything from that class feature - you don't select a combat style at all; you act as if your character didn't have that class feature at all.
Does this help?
Somewhat. At least I see where you are getting it from. You are saying that the 'combat style' and 'combat style bonus feats' are both parts of something that is called 'Combat Style Bonus Feats' (upper case). I sort of see what you are getting at, but I would have said that 'combat style' is just something mentioned within the 'Combat Style Bonus Feats.'
After all light and medium armor are also mentioned within the same heading and no one is saying those are replaced or lost.It also disagrees with the wording in the APG.
Ranger
Where the average druid eschews settlements entirely, seeking solace in the wilds, rangers are the border riders, living on civilization's tattered edge. They are the scouts and the bounty hunters, the trackers and woodsmen, and in their chosen environments they are unmatchable. Self-sufficient and keenly aware of their surroundings, rangers surive through strength, wit, and adaptability, stalking their prey and melting into the woods or wastes without a trace. It is this very adapabtibility and staunch, pioneering sense of independence that leads rangers out of more formal society or schooling and into a number of different specializations and combat styles, from two-handed fighting and breathtaking feats of archery to mastery of particular terrains or communication with the beasts around them.Presented below are a number of alternate class features and archetypes to help customize your ranger, whether he's a bold master of beasts or a shifty forest scout adept at tracking the enemy and picking off the unwary.
New Combat Styles
At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of the two core combat styles or one of the following new combat styles: crossbow, mounted combat, natural weapon, two-handed weapon, or weapon and shield style. The ranger can choose feats from his selected combat style even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.Crossbow: If the ranger selects crossbow style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Deadly Aim, Focused Shot, Precise Shot, and Rapid Reload. At 6th level, he adds Crossbow Mastery and Improved Precise Shot to the list. At 10th level, he adds Pinpoint Targeting and Shot on the Run to the list.
Mounted Combat: If the ranger selects mounted combat, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Ride-By Attack, and Trick Riding. At 6th level, he adds Mounted Shield and Spirited Charge to the list. At 10th level, he adds Mounted Skirmisher and Unseat to the list.
Natural Weapon: If the ranger selects natural weapon style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Aspect of the Beast, Improved Natural Weapon, Rending Claws, and Weapon Focus. At 6th level, he adds Eldritch Fangs and Vital Strike to the list. At 10th level, he adds Multiattack and Improved Vital Strike to the list.
Two-Handed Weapon: If the ranger selects two-handed weapon style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Cleave, Power Attack, Pushing Assault, and Shield of Swings. At 6th level, he adds Furious Focus and Great Cleave to the list. At 10th level, he adds Dreadful Carnage and Improved Sunder to the list.
Weapon and Shield: If the ranger selects weapon and shield style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam, and Two-Weapon Fighting. At 6th level, he adds Saving Shield and Shield Master to the list. At 10th level, he adds Bashing Finish and Greater Shield Focus to the list.
That pretty clearly states they are something separate from the bonus feats. But I can see where the thought is coming from. So that is a better reason to not pursue it.
..
You can't separate "combat style" from "combat style feats".
The "combat style" only defines which list of bonus feats you can choose from. You choose a combat style, then choose a feat from the list for that combat style. If you don't get any bonus feats, choosing a combat style is completely meaningless. The term "combat style" has no useful definition outside of the bonus feats, and the class feature provides no other benefits and has no other mechanical effect.
I would say the writers already did separate them.
There is at least 1 archtype and 1 feat, where combat style does have a useful definition and potentially provides a benefit or mechanical effect outside of the bonus feat. I don't know if those are the only 2, but at least those 2 exist.
This entire debate is making the assumption that a ranger can take a feat listed for his combat style using a normal feat also, not just one of the bonus feat slots, without meeting the prerequisites. Has this assumption ever been confirmed? From reading the class feature description, the combat style feats class feature only seems to apply to the combat style bonus feats and thus won't work if you have no such feats.
Your argument is analogous to stating that the weapon training fighter class ability is separate from the cumulative attack and damage bonuses provided by weapon training. This analogy is particularly relevant to this thread due to the FAQ quoted above using weapon training as an example.
Example: If you have a fighter archetype that replaces weapon training 1 (but not weapon training 2, 3, and 4), you don't gain the weapon training 2 ability until fighter level 9, which means you don't have the weapon training class ability at all until you reach fighter level 9. Anything with "weapon training" or "weapon training class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 9.
... If you have trouble with people accepting your build, you can always play a catfolk with the Catfolk Exemplar feat to allow use of Aspect of the Beast, BTW.
Ha! Obviously you haven't seen my thread on the 'anti-catfolk' build.
That interesting, but I don't think I could play a catfolk after dealing with the hordes of catfolk fanboys and fangirls.
Probably if I wanted to do something like that it would be with Kitsune since shifters can also take the Aspect of the Beast feat.
But the guy I'm building this for would never want something as delicate as a Kitsune for his concept.
.
.
This entire debate is making the assumption that a ranger can take a feat listed for his combat style using a normal feat also, not just one of the bonus feat slots, without meeting the prerequisites. Has this assumption ever been confirmed? From reading the class feature description, the combat style feats class feature only seems to apply to the combat style bonus feats and thus won't work if you have no such feats.I don't think this has come up at all, David... where are you seeing anyone making this assumption?
Actually I did. But it is specifically allowed in the Aspect of the Beast feat description.
..
Your argument is analogous to stating that the weapon training fighter class ability is separate from the cumulative attack and damage bonuses provided by weapon training. This analogy is particularly relevant to this thread due to the FAQ quoted above using weapon training as an example.
Example: If you have a fighter archetype that replaces weapon training 1 (but not weapon training 2, 3, and 4), you don't gain the weapon training 2 ability until fighter level 9, which means you don't have the weapon training class ability at all until you reach fighter level 9. Anything with "weapon training" or "weapon training class feature" as a prerequisite is unavailable to you until level 9.
Hmm... Not quite the same thing, but close enough that I can buy into it. I would say if that is their intention, then they shouldn't have written about them as such clearly different items. I think those sections would have been easier to write without using separate terms.
I will let my friend know that he can't have is raging, shifting, clawing ranger. At least not the way he was originally planning. I will see how close I can come to what he wants in other ways.
|
If you pick natural weapons as your combat style then Aspect of the Beast is already on your bonus feat list. You aren't going outside of that list, which is what David was inferring to.
Which archetype and feat do you say the combat style itself gives you a mechanical benefit? I don't know of any that do.
The mechanical benefit of his interpretation would be that you could take Aspect of the Beast as a standard feat selection without meeting its prerequisites, despite not actually having any combat style bonus feats.
If you pick natural weapons as your combat style then Aspect of the Beast is already on your bonus feat list. You aren't going outside of that list, which is what David was inferring to.
Which archetype and feat do you say the combat style itself gives you a mechanical benefit? I don't know of any that do.
Mostly you can not ignore the prerequisites for the feats unless it is selected as your bonus feat. But Aspect of the Beast specifically allows you to take it without meeting the prerequisites as a normal feat if you have selected the Natural Weapon Combat Style.
The Shifter archtype requires the ranger choose the Natural Weapon Combat Style. It doesn't read as requiring the bonus feats or even having any natural weapons. Just choosing the style. That was my original supposition anyway.
|
|
OK, the Shifter archetype "requires" that you pick that specific style. That just means you can't pick any of the other styles. That's not a mechanical benefit. If anything, that's a penalty. And the ranger picks the style as part of the Combat Style Feat class ability still.
And, as Oladon said, you are choosing the style as part of that class ability. All rangers, barring an archetype that replaces it, have that class ability so the AotB feat is under the assumption that the ranger choosing it has that class ability.
Can you choose a combat style? Absolutely. When you replace the combat feats, however, you get no mechanical benefits from choosing a combat style. You would be at the same level as any warrior (generic term) who claims to have a combat style. You can even run through town yelling, "I'M AN ARCHER!!!" Of course, when you meet up with an (actual) archer there may be some glaring discrepancies (e.g. "uhm, no, I can't shoot a ton of arrows at once, but I can get reeeeaaaal mad...").
I hope this helps.
-Doomn
Edit: Yeah, I can't spell...
As I said, I don't thnk that is what is written. But since so many people feel that is what was intended, I will not bring it to table. I have zero desire to start similar arguments on game night.
One thing is pf isn't written in legalese even a lot of people treat it as such. Chances are most people use combat style when receding tongue class feature or its used interchangeably.
doesn't it still allow you the feat that you get at 2nd level? aka, you still pick one at 2nd level and get 1 feat.