| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I mean is, if an archetype or selectable class ability gives you something that is normally a class ability of another class, you can take the attendant feats.
Examples: Life Oracle and Channeling feats, Hexcrafter Magus and the Hex Strike feat.
The case against is that while these characters have the substance of the required ability, they don't have the correct label.
Examples: [Channeling] feats require the "Channel Energy class feature". A Life Oracle has a class feature called "Revelation", an option called "Channel", which works like a cleric's Channel Energy class feature, but with a different name. Similarly, the Hexcrafter Magus has one or more Hexes, but not the required Hex class feature for Hex Strike - it's called Hex Magus or Hex Arcana.
My first argument is of course the assumption of perfection failure, or, "objection your honor, assumes precision of writing not in evidence".
But the meatier argument starts with this July 2013 FAQ entry:
Archetype: If an archetype replaces a class ability with a more specific version of that ability (or one that works similarly to the replaced ability), does the archetype's ability count as the original ability for the purpose of rules that improve the original ability?
It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability. (It doesn't matter if the archetype's ability name is different than the standard class ability it is replacing; it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter.)
Now, this FAQ is only discussing archetypes in the context of parent classes that have the class feature in question. But the bolded part is a statement of intent that might be applicable in other cases.
And indeed, Advanced Class Guide gives us the Primalist Archetype of the Bloodrager class, with the Primal Choices feature, which gives you the option of selecting Rage Powers, and then goes on to say that it "does not count as the rage power class feature for determining feat prerequisites and other requirements."
This exception implies a general rule that if you have one or more rage powers, you qualify for feats as if you had the rage powers class feature; more generally, that if you have the ability to use a given class feature, you counts as having that class feature for the purpose of prerequisites and requirements; this extends the FAQ ruling and is consistent with the bolded statement of intent.
Counterarguments, please?
Doted for interest.
I think it works, but I don't like because eventually it will lead to something broken. I would rather for them to explicitly say "X counts as Y" for prereqs every time it counts.
However what I like is not the rule, and upon an initial reading the interpretation you presented appears to be accurate.
As an example a druid can take a domain and qualify for divine protection since it says domains, and not "domain class feature".
I think it works, but I don't like because eventually it will lead to something broken. I would rather for them to explicitly say "X counts as Y" for prereqs every time it counts.
Sure. But looking over the mountain of published books they haven't, and given their errata policy, they won't.
I think it works, but I don't like because eventually it will lead to something broken. I would rather for them to explicitly say "X counts as Y" for prereqs every time it counts.Sure. But looking over the mountain of published books they haven't, and given their errata policy, they won't.
I know it wont happen. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More interestingly: what if a feat gives you an ability that's normally a class ability?
That should work also.
|
I agree with the the proposal in the original post, and believe it should go even further.
More abilities should qualify as prerequisites, even if their names aren't similar.
An example of this would be any feat that requires Weapon Focus (weapon) should be met by any Fighter with Weapon Training (weapon group), since Weapon Training, is, to all respects, the equivalent of having Weapon Focus in all weapons in that group.
Anyone with an ability that states they have a real beef against members of a particular creature type, to the extent that they get combat bonuses against them, ought to count as having them as a Favored Enemy.
To do otherwise appears to be hairsplitting nitpickery.
Especially given that certain races have been allowed to jump the queue in qualifying for magical prestige classes, several levels earlier than intended, simply because they have a spell-like ability.
But then, that's another example of 'casters get nice things, martials get the leftovers'.
|
Link: if this was a FAQ, it would solve the problem.
I don't see a problem. The FAQ the OP linked pretty much solves this issue.
The only thing I'm wondering now is "Does a class feature gained from a feat qualify you for a, say, 'Channel Energy class feature' prerequisite?"
|
|
Link: if this was a FAQ, it would solve the problem.I don't see a problem. The FAQ the OP linked pretty much solves this issue.
The only thing I'm wondering now is "Does a class feature gained from a feat qualify you for a, say, 'Channel Energy class feature' prerequisite?"
I used the linked FAQ when the Exploiter Wizard's ability to qualify to the Extra Exploit feat was questioned.
The FAQ was resoundingly dismissed as non-applicable due to specifying archetypes. Likewise, I provided a link to Sean's post and it was dismissed as being opinion, not FAQ.
If neither FAQ nor explanation is sufficient for the exploiter wizard, it also calls into question the life oracle and any other archetype granting abilities borrowed from another class.
I feel like the driving cause for most rules issues is PFS. Otherwise, your DM should use common sense or what he feels is the right way.
Likely. A simple statement in the PFS Field Guide would solve many of these issues. Them needing to be addressed on a case by case basis is so incredibly frustrating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likely. A simple statement in the PFS Field Guide would solve many of these issues. Them needing to be addressed on a case by case basis is so incredibly frustrating.
The Additional Resourses document is a pdf they (as in paizo) dont print. So I dont see the need to keep words down. They could expand on that and have a section of "house rules" to settle most of the hot topics. Best part about this, Mike Brock and others dont need to do it. The VCs and VLs could do most of the heavy lifting.
If PFS took care of the hot topics, 95% of rules threads would be "it should work like this, but ask you GM".
|
|
An example of this would be any feat that requires Weapon Focus (weapon) should be met by any Fighter with Weapon Training (weapon group), since Weapon Training, is, to all respects, the equivalent of having Weapon Focus in all weapons in that group.
If that was true than fighters could not get Weapon Focus for any weapon in a trained group, because unless a feat is specifically written that way, it can't stack with itself.
Why would they want it? It's rubbish.
The only reason for taking Weapon Focus, is because you're forced to take it, as a prerequisite for something better.If Weapon Training counted as Weapon Focus (all weapons in the group), they could skip the unnecessary step.
Hmm.
Since Ninja is just an Archetype of Rogue, does this put to rest the idea that Ninjas don't qualify as having the "Rogue Talent class feature"?
The ninja "archetype" replaces the rogue talent feature with a different ability, so they don't count as having the rogue talent class feature. However, since ninjas can just take rogue trick over and over, they probably should count as having that feature.
The Additional Resourses document is a pdf they (as in paizo) dont print. So I dont see the need to keep words down. They could expand on that and have a section of "house rules" to settle most of the hot topics. Best part about this, Mike Brock and others dont need to do it. The VCs and VLs could do most of the heavy lifting.
If PFS took care of the hot topics, 95% of rules threads would be "it should work like this, but ask you GM".
If that happened it would honestly improve my perception of Paizo a ton. Like a metric ton of good will.
|
|
Yes. This FAQ settles both the Exploiter wizard and the Ninja Trick Extra Rogue Talent questions.
You can absolutely take both.
If you think that FAQ will be accepted without substantial table variation, read the responses to my post on this thread.