Skills as a class feature


Rules Questions

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Calth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff
So you are saying that all the archetypes that reference class skills as class features, all the archetype rules that state they only deal with alternate class features but yet include class skills, are wrong, and that class skills are not class features based on formatting?

except they don't, which is your problem, and not the problem of the archetypes themselves. both the archetype rules and individual archetypes never put forward language saying that they can only alter class features. Most archetypes only effect class features and i don't think anyone would be confused in understanding when the archetype says it adds X class skill, it still get's added even if it isn't a class feature.


Bandw2 wrote:
Calth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff
So you are saying that all the archetypes that reference class skills as class features, all the archetype rules that state they only deal with alternate class features but yet include class skills, are wrong, and that class skills are not class features based on formatting?
except they don't, which is your problem. both the archetype rules and individual archetypes never put forward language saying that they can only alter class features. Most archetypes only effect class features and i don't think anyone would be confused in understanding when the archetype says it adds X class skill, it still get's added even if it isn't a class feature.

Except I quoted an archetype that explicitly calls out Class skills as a class feature, and you claiming that its a formatting issue is not a rules argument.

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

As far as the rules go - again, give me an example of Class Skills being a Class Feature that isn't part of an archetype. Otherwise the argument for them being Class Features is weak.

Why would expect a different class feature to cover skills when they are already covered by the Class skills class feature?


Bandw2 wrote:
frankly, this is a way to save space

I'm pretty sure this is why archetypes (and please give me an example that isn't an archetype) are written this way - it simplifies the preamble to the changes archetypes makes. Otherwise, precious word count would be eaten up with each archetype that changes skills. "A beast master has the following class skills.

Class Skills: hurk blah

A beast master has the following class features.

Class Features: hurk blah"

I don't have any particular evidence to support this opinion, but I feel it is likely correct.

As far as the rules go - again, give me an example of Class Skills being a Class Feature that isn't part of an archetype. Otherwise the argument for them being Class Features is weak.


Calth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Calth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RAW and RAI skills are not listed as class features. Asking what they are means there is not statement in the rules that they are. Skill are just skills.
So, archetypes which explicitly call out class skills as class features are what?
they don't though, the archetype says it changes your class skills, nothing more or less.

Straight from the PRD:

Beast Master

Some rangers, particularly those in primitive lands or who were raised by animals, have unusually strong bonds with animals. Unique among rangers, they can bond with multiple animals of any kind, creating a menagerie of wild yet loyal creatures, like a strange family. A beast master has the following class features.

Class Skills: A beast master's class skills are Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Escape Artist (Dex), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Ride (Dex), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Wis). These replace the standard ranger class skills.

where does that say Class skills must be one of the following? they simply follow the same order they come up in the class description. nothing there says it only works if it's a class feature to be replaced. It specifically calls out under the class skills section that a beast master has these class skills instead.

frankly, this is a way to save space as most people get the idea with just your bolded text.

So you are saying that all the archetypes that reference class skills as class features, all the archetype rules that state they only deal with alternate class features but yet include class skills, are wrong, and that class skills are not class features based on formatting?

And skill ranks are completely different that class skills. That's like saying bonus feats aren't class features because they follow feat retraining rules.

Actually bonus feats are listed under class features. I have yet to see anything calling a "class skill" a class feature. Just because an archetype alters something, that does not make it a class feature.

Yes, I saw the beast master example, but until "class features" are above class skills, then they are not class features. If anything the editing in the APG is faulty. I do understand it was written that way for the sake of simplicity, but it is still incorrect.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Calth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Calth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff
So you are saying that all the archetypes that reference class skills as class features, all the archetype rules that state they only deal with alternate class features but yet include class skills, are wrong, and that class skills are not class features based on formatting?
except they don't, which is your problem. both the archetype rules and individual archetypes never put forward language saying that they can only alter class features. Most archetypes only effect class features and i don't think anyone would be confused in understanding when the archetype says it adds X class skill, it still get's added even if it isn't a class feature.
Except I quoted an archetype that explicitly calls out Class skills as a class feature, and you claiming that its a formatting issue is not a rules argument.

NO IT DIDN'T, EXPLICITLY MEANS "class skills are class features" it said "blah blah changed the following class features" considering the amount of space needed to make it's own section for each archetype that would have been serious $$$(like enough to make people do bad edits), and the fact that the section doesn't actually have any baring on what is or isn't a class feature, THE SECTION PROVIDED DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS.

your hybole-ing isn't helping your argument.


Calth wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

As far as the rules go - again, give me an example of Class Skills being a Class Feature that isn't part of an archetype. Otherwise the argument for them being Class Features is weak.

Why would expect a different class feature to cover skills when they are already covered by the Class skills class feature?

You misunderstand - I would like an example of the rules section other than Archetypes where Class Skills are referred to as Class Features. My apologies for the unclear text.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The PRD page on retraining class features lists Skills as a class feature that can be retrained.
PRD wrote:

Retraining

If you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability you chose, .......

Listed as separate things.

On the retraining page the following as listed separately, under their own headings.

Ability Score Increase

Archetype

Class Feature This also goes to say--> "Class features you can retrain are as follows (some entries also call out other retraining options that are significant for the class in question, such as retraining feats for fighters, skill ranks for rogues, or spells known for sorcerers).
Note that skill ranks is not the same as class skills.

The list goes on. Instead of typing the rest of the page out I did a search for "class skills", and it was not on this page

In regard to the first part it calls out Skills and Class Abilities as seperate things, not class features.

I will concede to the second part about skills and ranks but that doesn't change my opinion that if it is part of a class it is a feature of that class.


How about this from the ACG:

Many of the basic mechanics have varying levels of
power and ability. No class should be the best at all or
even most of these mechanics. In fact, the more a class is
exceptionally skilled at the basic mechanics, the less room
you have as a designer to include the other interesting class
features.
Compare your choices with those made for the
existing classes to get an understanding of this dynamic
and determine how you will balance your new class.

Therefore basic mechanics are class features common to all classes, with base mechanics being BAB, Hit Dice, Skills, Saving Throws, and Spell-casting.

Bandw2 wrote:


NO IT DIDN'T, EXPLICITLY MEANS "class skills are class features" it said "blah blah changed the following class features" considering the amount of space needed to make it's own section for each archetype that would have been serious $$$(like enough to make people do bad edits), and the fact that the section doesn't actually have any baring on what is or isn't a class feature, THE SECTION PROVIDED DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS.

your hybole-ing isn't helping your argument.

I am sorry that I take the next two words after "the following class features" being "Class Skills" as being somehow related.


Bandw2, your use of caps makes me think you are getting upset; if this is not the case then never mind me. If you are though, I suggest some light activity and perhaps something to drink (water is good). Cheers,


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Calth wrote:

How about this from the ACG:

Many of the basic mechanics have varying levels of
power and ability. No class should be the best at all or
even most of these mechanics. In fact, the more a class is
exceptionally skilled at the basic mechanics, the less room
you have as a designer to include the other interesting class
features.
Compare your choices with those made for the
existing classes to get an understanding of this dynamic
and determine how you will balance your new class.

Therefore basic mechanics are class features common to all classes.

where does that even imply in your "bolded" area that it is a class feature.

I don;t even know why i am still here, i need sleep and the book clearly has class features labeled. if you cannot or are unwilling to read the actual section dealing with class features, then i shouldn't be willing to continue this argument looking for straws of out lying language use.

good night.


Bandw2 wrote:
Calth wrote:

How about this from the ACG:

Many of the basic mechanics have varying levels of
power and ability. No class should be the best at all or
even most of these mechanics. In fact, the more a class is
exceptionally skilled at the basic mechanics, the less room
you have as a designer to include the other interesting class
features.
Compare your choices with those made for the
existing classes to get an understanding of this dynamic
and determine how you will balance your new class.

Therefore basic mechanics are class features common to all classes.

where does that even imply in your "bolded" area that it is a class feature.

I don;t even know why i am still here, i need sleep and the book clearly has class features labeled. if you cannot or are unwilling to read the actual section dealing with class features, then i shouldn't be willing to continue this argument looking for straws of out lying language use.

good night.

How about the phrase "other class features". That seems to imply that base mechanics are class features huh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:

How about this from the ACG:

Many of the basic mechanics have varying levels of
power and ability. No class should be the best at all or
even most of these mechanics. In fact, the more a class is
exceptionally skilled at the basic mechanics, the less room
you have as a designer to include the other interesting class
features.
Compare your choices with those made for the
existing classes to get an understanding of this dynamic
and determine how you will balance your new class.

Therefore basic mechanics are class features common to all classes, with base mechanics being BAB, Hit Dice, Skills, Saving Throws, and Spell-casting.

My reading of this is that HD, Skills, Base Attack, and Base Saves are collectively the "basic mechanics" of a class, and the better you have these on a custom class, the fewer class features you should include. While it doesn't settle the argument on my side, neither does it settle it on yours.


The ACG also has a section on designing new classes. Skills and class features are separated. Class skills are not even mentioned. That means we have 3 books(CRB, ACG, and Ultimate Campaign), that do not have class skills listed as class features vs one(APG) that does. Now you might want to knock the ACG for its poor editing, but the other two books are solid enough to count them over the APG.


Bandw2 wrote:
good night.

Sleep well.


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Calth wrote:

How about this from the ACG:

Many of the basic mechanics have varying levels of
power and ability. No class should be the best at all or
even most of these mechanics. In fact, the more a class is
exceptionally skilled at the basic mechanics, the less room
you have as a designer to include the other interesting class
features.
Compare your choices with those made for the
existing classes to get an understanding of this dynamic
and determine how you will balance your new class.

Therefore basic mechanics are class features common to all classes, with base mechanics being BAB, Hit Dice, Skills, Saving Throws, and Spell-casting.

My reading of this is that HD, Skills, Base Attack, and Base Saves are collectively the "basic mechanics" of a class, and the better you have these on a custom class, the fewer class features you should include. While it doesn't settle the argument on my side, neither does it settle it on yours.

So you are completely ignoring the line about other class features?

wraithstrike wrote:
The ACG also has a section on designing new classes. Skills and class features are separated. Class skills are not even mentioned. That means we have 3 books(CRB, ACG, and Ultimate Campaign), that do not have class skills listed as class features vs one(APG) that does. Now you might want to knock the ACG for its poor editing, but the other two books are solid enough to count them over the APG.

Read again, this is the relevant text from the Advanced Class Guide section on designing classes equating Base Mechanics with Class Features. Spell-casting is included in this section, are you arguing spell-casting isn't a class feature?


Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The PRD page on retraining class features lists Skills as a class feature that can be retrained.
PRD wrote:

Retraining

If you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability you chose, .......

Listed as separate things.

On the retraining page the following as listed separately, under their own headings.

Ability Score Increase

Archetype

Class Feature This also goes to say--> "Class features you can retrain are as follows (some entries also call out other retraining options that are significant for the class in question, such as retraining feats for fighters, skill ranks for rogues, or spells known for sorcerers).
Note that skill ranks is not the same as class skills.

The list goes on. Instead of typing the rest of the page out I did a search for "class skills", and it was not on this page

In regard to the first part it calls out Skills and Class Abilities as seperate things, not class features.

I will concede to the second part about skills and ranks but that doesn't change my opinion that if it is part of a class it is a feature of that class.

Every part of the class does not count as a class feature. Class feature refers to special things the class does such as a barbarian rage.


Calth wrote:
So you are completely ignoring the line about other class features?

No, I am not. Think of class design as a scale. On one side of the scale you have the "basic mechanics". On the other side, you have the more interesting "class features." The section is talking about making sure the two sides are balanced. That's my reading of it.


wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The PRD page on retraining class features lists Skills as a class feature that can be retrained.
PRD wrote:

Retraining

If you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability you chose, .......

Listed as separate things.

On the retraining page the following as listed separately, under their own headings.

Ability Score Increase

Archetype

Class Feature This also goes to say--> "Class features you can retrain are as follows (some entries also call out other retraining options that are significant for the class in question, such as retraining feats for fighters, skill ranks for rogues, or spells known for sorcerers).
Note that skill ranks is not the same as class skills.

The list goes on. Instead of typing the rest of the page out I did a search for "class skills", and it was not on this page

In regard to the first part it calls out Skills and Class Abilities as seperate things, not class features.

I will concede to the second part about skills and ranks but that doesn't change my opinion that if it is part of a class it is a feature of that class.

Every part of the class does not count as a class feature. Class feature refers to special things the class does such as a barbarian rage.

According to what explicit definition of class feature? Because I sure cant find one.

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Calth wrote:
So you are completely ignoring the line about other class features?
No, I am not. Think of class design as a scale. On one side of the scale you have the "basic mechanics". On the other side, you have the more interesting "class features." The section is talking about making sure the two sides are balanced. That's my reading of it.

Except the other side is "other interesting class features" not just "interesting class features" that one word makes a big difference.


Calth wrote:


According to what explicit definition of class feature? Because I sure cant find one.

You probably won't find one. But "Class Features" basically means "everything in the rightmost column". This is supported by the order of listing, and by long established practice for fallen paladins and people losing access to their prestige class. Also, it's generally understood that, for example, the Sage Sorcerer doesn't use Int for all skills, and that places the burden of proof on those who claim that skills are class features.


Pupsocket wrote:
Calth wrote:


According to what explicit definition of class feature? Because I sure cant find one.
You probably won't find one. But "Class Features" basically means "everything in the rightmost column". This is supported by the order of listing, and by long established practice for fallen paladins and people losing access to their prestige class. Also, it's generally understood that, for example, the Sage Sorcerer doesn't use Int for all skills, and that places the burden of proof on those who claim that skills are class features.

Except I have provided proof, and the only argument back is "saving word count" and page formatting.


Calth wrote:
Spell-casting is included in this section, are you arguing spell-casting isn't a class feature?

This is a good and interesting point. However, in looking at the section you are referring to, it very definitively separates Basic Mechanics from Class Features as different subsections. Spellcasting (or rather, Spells) is something that is called out in the Class Feature section for all classes who possess it.

For what it's worth, the portion on Spellcasting says, "Not every class possesses the ability to cast spells, but it's a common feature and worth considering with the rest of the basic mechanics." This is not a completely clear wording - one may read that Spellcasting is a class feature that is worth considering along with other basic mechanics.

Additionally, Spellcasting is referred to in the Class Features section under Dead Levels:

"Spellcasters are sometimes an exception to this guideline. In the case of a full spellcasting class, acquiring a new level of spells to cast is valuable enough to count as a class feature."

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The PRD page on retraining class features lists Skills as a class feature that can be retrained.
PRD wrote:

Retraining

If you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability you chose, .......

Listed as separate things.

On the retraining page the following as listed separately, under their own headings.

Ability Score Increase

Archetype

Class Feature This also goes to say--> "Class features you can retrain are as follows (some entries also call out other retraining options that are significant for the class in question, such as retraining feats for fighters, skill ranks for rogues, or spells known for sorcerers).
Note that skill ranks is not the same as class skills.

The list goes on. Instead of typing the rest of the page out I did a search for "class skills", and it was not on this page

In regard to the first part it calls out Skills and Class Abilities as seperate things, not class features.

I will concede to the second part about skills and ranks but that doesn't change my opinion that if it is part of a class it is a feature of that class.

Every part of the class does not count as a class feature. Class feature refers to special things the class does such as a barbarian rage.

And the Barbarian getting Perception whereas the Paladin does not counts as a pretty big class feature. Same with spells. The'yre class features, they're what said class specifically gets that differentiates them from other classes.


Calth wrote:
the only argument back is "saving word count" and page formatting.

And the fact that Class Skills are listed before Class Features in all non-Archetype writeups. And my previous post about the subsections for Basic Mechanics and Class Features (admittedly, likely written after the one I am now replying to). And Pupsocket's point about losing Class Features for ex-Paladins and the like. And Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules being different for Skills and Class Features…

EDIT: Clarified my first statement.


Calth wrote:


So, archetypes which explicitly call out class skills as class features are what?

"Sloppy writing and editing" is the answer to your question.


Rysky wrote:
And the Barbarian getting Perception whereas the Paladin does not counts as a pretty big class feature. Same with spells. The'yre class features, they're what said class specifically gets that differentiates them from other classes.

A barbarian getting Perception as a Class Skill isn't a pretty big class feature. It's a basic mechanic shared by five of the eleven core classes, four and a half (some Oracles get it) out of the ten classes from the APG, UC, and UM (three and a half out of eight if you do not include the ninja and samurai), and six out of the nine new classes from the ACG. It's hardly special. I'm not saying that a shared ability like barbarians and rogues both having uncanny dodge makes it not a class feature, but rather that having a particular Class Skill does not make a class unique in any way. Spells are a more complicated issue, as per my earlier post.


Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The PRD page on retraining class features lists Skills as a class feature that can be retrained.
PRD wrote:

Retraining

If you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability you chose, .......

Listed as separate things.

On the retraining page the following as listed separately, under their own headings.

Ability Score Increase

Archetype

Class Feature This also goes to say--> "Class features you can retrain are as follows (some entries also call out other retraining options that are significant for the class in question, such as retraining feats for fighters, skill ranks for rogues, or spells known for sorcerers).
Note that skill ranks is not the same as class skills.

The list goes on. Instead of typing the rest of the page out I did a search for "class skills", and it was not on this page

In regard to the first part it calls out Skills and Class Abilities as seperate things, not class features.

I will concede to the second part about skills and ranks but that doesn't change my opinion that if it is part of a class it is a feature of that class.

Every part of the class does not count as a class feature. Class feature refers to special things the class does such as a barbarian rage.

According to what explicit definition of class feature? Because I sure cant find one.

The examples in the book which are below "class skills".


Pupsocket wrote:
Calth wrote:


So, archetypes which explicitly call out class skills as class features are what?
"Sloppy writing and editing" is the answer to your question.

That's an opinion, not a definitive answer. My opinion differs, but has already been provided, and the weight of something that can have potentially large effects cannot hang on archetypes alone.

Grand Lodge

This, at it's core, is just a desire to have Empyreal/Sage Wildblooded Sorcerers use Wisdom/Intelligence for all their Charisma based skills.

Right?


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Calth wrote:
the only argument back is "saving word count" and page formatting.
And the fact that Class Skills are listed before Class Features. And my previous post about the subsections for Basic Mechanics and Class Features (admittedly, likely written after the one I am now replying to). And Pupsocket's point about losing Class Features for ex-Paladins and the like. And Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules being different for Skills and Class Features…

Your points 1 by 1:

1.) See page formatting

2.) As I said before, Base Mechanics should be considered class features common to all classes, because that is what the paragraph says, the section on Class Features is for unique features. Look at the Primary Feature section, it references spell-casting, a base mechanic as filling this role. Yet no one argues Spell-casting is not a class feature while it is a Base Mechanic by Paizos definition.

3.) The falling is something I hadn't considered before. Based on this, one could indeed argue that a fallen paladin reverts to their racial HD and racial skills. Do note that racial HD and Skills are referred to as features, again supporting that class HD and Class Skills are class features.

4.) There is no retraining rule for class skills, only skill ranks. Equating the two is claiming that bonus feats aren't a class feature because they are retrained as feats.


Calth wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
Calth wrote:


According to what explicit definition of class feature? Because I sure cant find one.
You probably won't find one. But "Class Features" basically means "everything in the rightmost column". This is supported by the order of listing, and by long established practice for fallen paladins and people losing access to their prestige class. Also, it's generally understood that, for example, the Sage Sorcerer doesn't use Int for all skills, and that places the burden of proof on those who claim that skills are class features.
Except I have provided proof, and the only argument back is "saving word count" and page formatting.

That is not proof. Proof is something like "we now count class skill as class features", or if class skills was listed under class features just like a fighter's bonus feats are.

As of right now class skill is listed separately in the core book, and there has been no verbage calling the CRB out as "doing it wrong". Since the core book is the primary source for rules, and it has class skills listed separately then it has precedence.

Silver Crusade

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And the Barbarian getting Perception whereas the Paladin does not counts as a pretty big class feature. Same with spells. The'yre class features, they're what said class specifically gets that differentiates them from other classes.
A barbarian getting Perception as a Class Skill isn't a pretty big class feature. It's a basic mechanic shared by five of the eleven core classes, four and a half (some Oracles get it) out of the classes from the APG, UC, and UM, and six out of the nine new classes from the ACG. It's hardly special. I'm not saying that a shared ability like barbarians and rogues both having uncanny dodge makes it not a class feature, but rather that having a particular Class Skill does not make a class unique in any way. Spells are a more complicated issue, as per my earlier post.

No, but having that skill is unique to that class, in a sense that not all classes get it.

Barbarians having skills is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians have Perception as a Class Skill is a Clas Feature.

Barbarians having BAB is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians having Full BAB is a Class Feature.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

This, at it's core, is just a desire to have Empyreal/Sage Wildblooded Sorcerers use Wisdom/Intelligence for all their Charisma based skills.

Right?

Not at all, what attribute a skill is based off is unaffected and unrelated to the list of Class Skills being a Class feature. That question was the genesis of the argument, due to it not being clear from the initial post as to what was being asked.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

This, at it's core, is just a desire to have Empyreal/Sage Wildblooded Sorcerers use Wisdom/Intelligence for all their Charisma based skills.

Right?

That is what spawned all of this, yes. Hehe. The answer to which I think everyone agrees is no. I could be wrong. It has since evolved into a more esoteric discussion.


Rysky wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And the Barbarian getting Perception whereas the Paladin does not counts as a pretty big class feature. Same with spells. The'yre class features, they're what said class specifically gets that differentiates them from other classes.
A barbarian getting Perception as a Class Skill isn't a pretty big class feature. It's a basic mechanic shared by five of the eleven core classes, four and a half (some Oracles get it) out of the classes from the APG, UC, and UM, and six out of the nine new classes from the ACG. It's hardly special. I'm not saying that a shared ability like barbarians and rogues both having uncanny dodge makes it not a class feature, but rather that having a particular Class Skill does not make a class unique in any way. Spells are a more complicated issue, as per my earlier post.

No, but having that skill is unique to that class, in a sense that not all classes get it.

Barbarians having skills is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians have Perception as a Class Skill is a Clas Feature.

Barbarians having BAB is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians having Full BAB is a Class Feature.

If it(class skills) is a class feature then why is it listed above class features with its own heading?


wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
Calth wrote:


According to what explicit definition of class feature? Because I sure cant find one.
You probably won't find one. But "Class Features" basically means "everything in the rightmost column". This is supported by the order of listing, and by long established practice for fallen paladins and people losing access to their prestige class. Also, it's generally understood that, for example, the Sage Sorcerer doesn't use Int for all skills, and that places the burden of proof on those who claim that skills are class features.
Except I have provided proof, and the only argument back is "saving word count" and page formatting.

That is not proof. Proof is something like "we now count class skill as class features", or if class skills was listed under class features just like a fighter's bonus feats are.

As of right now class skill is listed separately in the core book, and there has been no verbage calling the CRB out as "doing it wrong". Since the core book is the primary source for rules, and it has class skills listed separately then it has precedence.

You are making the assumption that class skills were not class features already in the CRB. They don't need to print a rules change since it already was the rule. Everything printed since supports this. Archetypes only have alternate class features, but still change class skills and reference them as class features. The ACG class design section refers to base mechanics as features. Racial HD and Racial Skills are race features, which indicate that Class HD and Class skills are class features.


I feel like this is beginning to go circular. I have nothing more to add, and haven't seen a fresh argument from the opposing side in half an hour. Good night, ladies and gentlemen, and may your stones of chance roll 20s.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And the Barbarian getting Perception whereas the Paladin does not counts as a pretty big class feature. Same with spells. The'yre class features, they're what said class specifically gets that differentiates them from other classes.
A barbarian getting Perception as a Class Skill isn't a pretty big class feature. It's a basic mechanic shared by five of the eleven core classes, four and a half (some Oracles get it) out of the classes from the APG, UC, and UM, and six out of the nine new classes from the ACG. It's hardly special. I'm not saying that a shared ability like barbarians and rogues both having uncanny dodge makes it not a class feature, but rather that having a particular Class Skill does not make a class unique in any way. Spells are a more complicated issue, as per my earlier post.

No, but having that skill is unique to that class, in a sense that not all classes get it.

Barbarians having skills is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians have Perception as a Class Skill is a Clas Feature.

Barbarians having BAB is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians having Full BAB is a Class Feature.

If it(class skills) is a class feature then why is it listed above class features with its own heading?

Because that's how it was listed in 3rd edition? Because it might look wonky if they put with other class abilities? Because they like it that way?

Just because of formatting does not make something not a class feature. The wording going back and forth between saying Class FeAtures and Class abilities certaintlly doesn't help matters though.


Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And the Barbarian getting Perception whereas the Paladin does not counts as a pretty big class feature. Same with spells. The'yre class features, they're what said class specifically gets that differentiates them from other classes.
A barbarian getting Perception as a Class Skill isn't a pretty big class feature. It's a basic mechanic shared by five of the eleven core classes, four and a half (some Oracles get it) out of the classes from the APG, UC, and UM, and six out of the nine new classes from the ACG. It's hardly special. I'm not saying that a shared ability like barbarians and rogues both having uncanny dodge makes it not a class feature, but rather that having a particular Class Skill does not make a class unique in any way. Spells are a more complicated issue, as per my earlier post.

No, but having that skill is unique to that class, in a sense that not all classes get it.

Barbarians having skills is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians have Perception as a Class Skill is a Clas Feature.

Barbarians having BAB is a Base Mechanic. Barbarians having Full BAB is a Class Feature.

If it(class skills) is a class feature then why is it listed above class features with its own heading?

Because that's how it was listed in 3rd edition? Because it might look wonky if they put with other class abilities? Because they like it that way?

Just because of formatting does not make something not a class feature. The wording going back and forth between saying Class FeAtures and Class abilities certaintlly doesn't help matters though.

If you look throughout the CRB they tend to have a certain writing format.

Main header
...subheader
.....information

Now you are telling the format for no good reason and in only one section of the CRB is

subheader
...information
header

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Silver Crusade

I guess we shall Wraith, and no it's more like:

Header
Sub-Header Skills
Sub-Header Class Abilities

Which would be differant than ever other part of the book since that is the only part dealing with classes.

Sovereign Court

talk about inane arguments...

Silver Crusade

I have a related question: does the Spirit Guide Oracle archetype stack with the Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle archetype?

Spirit Guide (ACG) is listed in the PRD and Archives of Nethys as changing "class skills", whereas the Ancient Lorekeeper (ARG) is listed as modifying "Mystery bonus skills", which would be different things. However, in the text of the archetype descriptions both use common language saying that they modify Mystery bonus skills.

So questions:
Do the archetypes stack?
Does one of these archetypes require an errata?
Is the whole argument moot because class skills are not class features?
Are Mystery bonus skills not a class feature either?

Silver Crusade

supervillan wrote:

I have a related question: does the Spirit Guide Oracle archetype stack with the Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle archetype?

Spirit Guide (ACG) is listed in the PRD and Archives of Nethys as changing "class skills", whereas the Ancient Lorekeeper (ARG) is listed as modifying "Mystery bonus skills", which would be different things. However, in the text of the archetype descriptions both use common language saying that they modify Mystery bonus skills.

So questions:
Do the archetypes stack?
Does one of these archetypes require an errata?
Is the whole argument moot because class skills are not class features?
Are Mystery bonus skills not a class feature either?

Hmm regardless of the argument regarding normal class skills I would say these do not stack since those skills are gained from a class ability, the Mystery.

Granted they both grant Knowledge skills so if it's a home game you could probably convince your GM to take both.


Your argument is flawed - the order/format that the class features does not matter. If they are listed in the couple pages of "cleric", then they are cleric features.


They are called "class skills". Entirely based on your class.

If you get something specifically because of a class, then it is a class feature. If choosing a different class would/could give you something different, it is a class feature.

The section labeled "Class Features" says:

Quote:
All of the following are class features of the barbarian.

Which means everything that follows is a class feature. It does not mean that those are the only class features of the class. The wording allows other things to be class features. If it prevented anything else from being considered a class feature, that would instead be:

"The following are all of the class features of the barbarian."


Ugh, reading this thread is frustrating.

Whether or not class skills are a class feature, the effect of the class is just to provide the class skill bonus. Even if class skills are a class feature, the Sage sorcerer still uses Cha for Cha-based skills, because the class feature only affects the class skill bonus, not which stat the skill is based on.

I feel like people are talking past each other. You can't take two archetypes that affect skills, but that does not mean that the skills themselves are a class feature that is affected by Sage bloodline. Only the fact of whether the skill is a class skill is a "class feature".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Class Features are those features that are unique to a class.

For example having sorcerer slots is unique to the sorcerer, and any other class which has those feats.

Skills are not unique because any character can take any skill. The only place in where class intervenes are the number of skill points and which skills are designated class skills. Class skill designations and the number of skill points per level, are a class feature, but the skills themselves are not.

Silver Crusade

RumpinRufus wrote:

Ugh, reading this thread is frustrating.

Whether or not class skills are a class feature, the effect of the class is just to provide the class skill bonus. Even if class skills are a class feature, the Sage sorcerer still uses Cha for Cha-based skills, because the class feature only affects the class skill bonus, not which stat the skill is based on.

I feel like people are talking past each other. You can't take two archetypes that affect skills, but that does not mean that the skills themselves are a class feature that is affected by Sage bloodline. Only the fact of whether the skill is a class skill is a "class feature".

It's not so much talking past each other at this point, the sage sorcerer question has been answered so now this thread is pretty much about whether Class Skills are Class Features for the purposes of Archetype overlap.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I feel like mentioning one thing, without actually reading much of the new posts. The inherent problem with the argument is trying to clarify the distinction between "class feature" from the perspective of the english language, and "class feature" from the perspective of mechanics in Pathfinder.

sure class feature to the english language means a feature of the class, but to pathfinder, it is only the things unique to a specific class.

so in essence any argument is founded in logic, it's just not always based on the correct perspective for the effective use of those words.

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Skills as a class feature All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.