FAQ Request: Archetype Class Features: Old Features Gone or Dormant?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spin-off of this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s3z4?Fighter-Archetype-that-only-gets-Armour

For whatever reason, some people seem to think that when you take an archetype, the class features with increments that you give up, such as in the case of the fighter (dragoon) archetype and armor training, do not in fact cease to exist to the fighter; they are simply "walled off" so to speak and can be re-accessed by a sash of the war champion which grants the user four effective fighter levels for the purpose of armor training.

So the crux of the question is this: When a character takes an archetype, do their previous incremental base class abilities cease to exist as the general consensus seems to be, or can they be re-accessed their abilities through magic items that grant effective levels?


It depends. Some archetypes give up all of an ability, others only give up parts of it. So if you have an archetype that gives up say, weapon training 2, 3 and 4 but not weapon training 1 then you still have weapon training and the item improves it.

Another case is if you have an archetype for say Magus that gives up spell recall but not improved spell recall. When you would get improved spell recall you instead get the regular version.

If there was a fighter archetype that gave up armor training 1 but not any other armor training you would get armor training 1 when you would have gotten armor training 2.

Regardless you do not have a class feature until you have the level the class feature is given at. As such if you take an archetype that delays your access to a class feature (say a witch archetype that gives up your level 1 hex) then you can't take something that is dependent on that class feature until you have it (for example the extra hex feat).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They're gone. That's why it says "Replaces" not "Suppresses".

Raising your effective Fighter level by 4 doesn't do anything if you trade out the ability that is affected by said level. It makes you treated as 4 levels higher. So what?

If you're a 3rd level Fighter with normal Armor Training, and increase your level by 4...gratz, you have Armor Training 2 now.

If you replaced Armor Training 2, then it doesn't matter WHAT your level is. You don't have it. If you level up to level 7 normally, you don't get it. So why would treating your level as 4 higher matter? You don't get the ability at that level.


Rynjin wrote:

They're gone. That's why it says "Replaces" not "Suppresses".

Raising your effective Fighter level by 4 doesn't do anything if you trade out the ability that is affected by said level. It makes you treated as 4 levels higher. So what?

If you're a 3rd level Fighter with normal Armor Training, and increase your level by 4...gratz, you have Armor Training 2 now.

If you replaced Armor Training 2, then it doesn't matter WHAT your level is. You don't have it. If you level up to level 7 normally, you don't get it. So why would treating your level as 4 higher matter? You don't get the ability at that level.

See, this is my standpoint as well. But apparently some people very vehemently disagree. And thus the need for the thread.


Rynjin wrote:

They're gone. That's why it says "Replaces" not "Suppresses".

Raising your effective Fighter level by 4 doesn't do anything if you trade out the ability that is affected by said level. It makes you treated as 4 levels higher. So what?

If you're a 3rd level Fighter with normal Armor Training, and increase your level by 4...gratz, you have Armor Training 2 now.

If you replaced Armor Training 2, then it doesn't matter WHAT your level is. You don't have it. If you level up to level 7 normally, you don't get it. So why would treating your level as 4 higher matter? You don't get the ability at that level.

Not true, for example:

If the archetype replaces Armor training 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4 then adding the sash helps becausae you are closer to getting the level; you would get 3 (which becomes Armor Training 1 for you)


Just because some people are being morons doesn't mean a FAQ is needed.

"FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Question" not "Question a few people are asking because they refuse to apply the smallest amount of common sense to their daily life".

This is the equivalent of saying my 3rd level Fighter can wear a Robe of Arcane Heritage and suddenly gains the Bloodline of his choice as if he were a 4th level Sorcerer.

Starbuck_II wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

They're gone. That's why it says "Replaces" not "Suppresses".

Raising your effective Fighter level by 4 doesn't do anything if you trade out the ability that is affected by said level. It makes you treated as 4 levels higher. So what?

If you're a 3rd level Fighter with normal Armor Training, and increase your level by 4...gratz, you have Armor Training 2 now.

If you replaced Armor Training 2, then it doesn't matter WHAT your level is. You don't have it. If you level up to level 7 normally, you don't get it. So why would treating your level as 4 higher matter? You don't get the ability at that level.

Not true, for example:

If the archetype replaces Armor training 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4 then adding the sash helps becausae you are closer to getting the level; you would get 3 (which becomes Armor Training 1 for you)

Which is beside the point. It's not the scenario presented.

A Fighter who trades Armor Training 2, 3, and 4 NEVER advances those abilities by leveling. Doesn't matter if his level is 1, 5, or 25, he can only ever get Armor Training 1. He lacks the other class features. They were REPLACED.

Your scenario is an exception. In essence, that Fighter gets Armor Training 1 at level 11, and then Armor Training 4 at level 15.

But even still, raising his effective Fighter level by 4, 8, or a million will never let him get Armor Training 3 or 4.


Rynjin wrote:

Just because some people are being morons doesn't mean a FAQ is needed.

"FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Question" not "Question a few people are asking because they refuse to apply the smallest amount of common sense to their daily life".

This is the equivalent of saying my 3rd level Fighter can wear a Robe of Arcane Heritage and suddenly gains the Bloodline of his choice as if her were a 4th level Sorcerer.

Well to be fair there have been items that do something like that (monk's robes for example); however even then they tended to be explicit about what they did and didn't do.

Also most items that we are talking about here have the prerequisite that you must have the class feature in question before they help.


Abraham spalding wrote:
It depends. Some archetypes give up all of an ability, others only give up parts of it. So if you have an archetype that gives up say, weapon training 2, 3 and 4 but not weapon training 1 then you still have weapon training and the item improves it.

That makes sense. I wonder if you could help interprete the following situation.

How would you categorize a 10th level Sohei Monk wearing a Monk's Robe? Sohei have the Unarmed Strike feature, but the damage never progresses beyond 4th level. The Robe says that your damage is treated as a Monk who is five levels higher.

So which of the following would apply to the Unarmed Damage of this Sohei?

1.) Sohei never get better than 1d8, so increasing his effective level doesn't change the damage.

2.) Sohei are frozen at 4th level, but the Robe progresses him another 5 levels for an effective level of 9. So he does 1d10 in damage.

3.) Although the damage is frozen at 4th level, this Sohei is actually 10th level, so the Robe progresses him to an effective level of 15. So the damage is 2d6.

This one has bothered me for a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see the issue, probably because of the disparity in which it is used. And the only time it is differentiated is during archetypes and the progression table.

I think though, that anybody with a lick of sense understands the meaning of the words. And they should not try and force it to suit their own needs.

abilities that actually make separate note of the advancement (whether in the archetype or the table) of abilities and give the option of trading that advancement away, actually trade away the advancement.


Gisher wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
It depends. Some archetypes give up all of an ability, others only give up parts of it. So if you have an archetype that gives up say, weapon training 2, 3 and 4 but not weapon training 1 then you still have weapon training and the item improves it.

That makes sense. I wonder if you could help interprete the following situation.

How would you categorize a 10th level Sohei Monk wearing a Monk's Robe? Sohei have the Unarmed Strike feature, but the damage never progresses beyond 4th level. The Robe says that your damage is treated as a Monk who is five levels higher.

So which of the following would apply to the Unarmed Damage of this Sohei?

1.) Sohei never get better than 1d8, so increasing his effective level doesn't change the damage.

2.) Sohei are frozen at 4th level, but the Robe progresses him another 5 levels for an effective level of 9. So he does 1d10 in damage.

3.) Although the damage is frozen at 4th level, this Sohei is actually 10th level, so the Robe progresses him to an effective level of 15. So the damage is 2d6.

This one has bothered me for a while.

"Damage never progresses"

Ding ding ding we have our answer


Gisher wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
It depends. Some archetypes give up all of an ability, others only give up parts of it. So if you have an archetype that gives up say, weapon training 2, 3 and 4 but not weapon training 1 then you still have weapon training and the item improves it.

That makes sense. I wonder if you could help interprete the following situation.

How would you categorize a 10th level Sohei Monk wearing a Monk's Robe? Sohei have the Unarmed Strike feature, but the damage never progresses beyond 4th level. The Robe says that your damage is treated as a Monk who is five levels higher.

So which of the following would apply to the Unarmed Damage of this Sohei?

1.) Sohei never get better than 1d8, so increasing his effective level doesn't change the damage.

2.) Sohei are frozen at 4th level, but the Robe progresses him another 5 levels for an effective level of 9. So he does 1d10 in damage.

3.) Although the damage is frozen at 4th level, this Sohei is actually 10th level, so the Robe progresses him to an effective level of 15. So the damage is 2d6.

This one has bothered me for a while.

1.) The damage is hard capped at 4th level. No matter what his actual level is his damage is capped due to the archetype. A caveat -- I would consider a corner case of if the belt gave enough of a monk level by itself that the sohei could use the "original" that is built into the belt. I am unsure how I would rule in such a case, however this would be an extreme corner case and is only theoretical since there is no item that would give/allow such a thing in existence yet.


Any scaling class feature that misses some of its advancements can be increased normally so long as you possess the class feature and there is not specific text stating something to the contrary.

In the case of the Sohei, there is specific text stating something to the contrary.

In the case of Armor Training 2 it is not a class feature, it is an advancement of a class feature that is still possessed. The Class Feature itself (Armor Training) has not been altered and there is no text to the contrary. The Sash works.


Another odd thing is that there is no actual thing as "armor training 2" or "armor training 3"

Armor training is a single ability that improves over time.

Basically anything referring to it is simply really sloppy/bad editing that should be cleaned up, or the class itself needs to be cleaned up by an editor.

EDIT: Semi-ninja'd by Guass because I put this as an edit the first time apparently instead of it's own post and had to redo it.


Rynjin wrote:

Just because some people are being morons doesn't mean a FAQ is needed.

"FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Question" not "Question a few people are asking because they refuse to apply the smallest amount of common sense to their daily life".

Trust me, I know. But until we get a dev to come in here and say, "Look here, this is how it works; if you don't like it you can house rule it", we're gonna have people who are spreading this wildly-inaccurate idea of how archetypes work.


Gauss wrote:

Any scaling class feature that misses some of its advancements can be increased normally so long as you possess the class feature. Armor Training is one such class feature.

Armor Training 2 is not a class feature, it is an advancement of a class feature. The Class Feature itself (Armor Training) has not been altered. The Sash works.

Armor Training 2 is obviously a class feature, as it is listed as a class feature that has been replaced.

That is as simple as it gets.

If the class feature hadn't been altered, then the archetypes would not specifically says "This replaces or alters X".

If it is replaced, then you cannot get it. The ONLY exception is if you "skip a step", in which case progression is delayed.

The Sash makes a Fighter 3 count as a Fighter 7 for the purpose of Armor Training.

Some archetypes make that mean jack shit because they are a Fighter who does not get anything involving Armor Training at level 7. Period. They don't get it.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Another odd thing is that there is no actual thing as "armor training 2" or "armor training 3"

Armor training is a single ability that improves over time.

Basically anything referring to it is simply really sloppy/bad editing that should be cleaned up, or the class itself needs to be cleaned up by an editor.

EDIT: Semi-ninja'd by Guass because I put this as an edit the first time apparently instead of it's own post and had to redo it.

I think the fact that in all the versions, iterations and errata this hasn't happened should show you that it isn't bad editing but intentional.


Rynjin wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Any scaling class feature that misses some of its advancements can be increased normally so long as you possess the class feature. Armor Training is one such class feature.

Armor Training 2 is not a class feature, it is an advancement of a class feature. The Class Feature itself (Armor Training) has not been altered. The Sash works.

Armor Training 2 is obviously a class feature, as it is listed as a class feature that has been replaced.

That is as simple as it gets.

If the class feature hadn't been altered, then the archetypes would not specifically says "This replaces or alters X".

If it is replaced, then you cannot get it. The ONLY exception is if you "skip a step", in which case progression is delayed.

The Sash makes a Fighter 3 count as a Fighter 7 for the purpose of Armor Training.

Some archetypes make that mean jack s@*~ because they are a Fighter who does not get anything involving Armor Training at level 7. Period. They don't get it.

IT is a class feature on the class progression table.

It has no entry on the text and does nothing in fact.

This is stupid and obviously not RAI. However it is also a result of very poor editing and not paying attention to second and third order consequences.


Diekssus wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Another odd thing is that there is no actual thing as "armor training 2" or "armor training 3"

Armor training is a single ability that improves over time.

Basically anything referring to it is simply really sloppy/bad editing that should be cleaned up, or the class itself needs to be cleaned up by an editor.

EDIT: Semi-ninja'd by Guass because I put this as an edit the first time apparently instead of it's own post and had to redo it.

I think the fact that in all the versions, iterations and errata this hasn't happened should show you that it isn't bad editing but intentional.

That doesn't mean it isn't bad editing. Armor training 2 is listed with no reference to it and not explanation of what it is. Armor training is a singly contained ability.

Instead it should be referenced as what it is -- progression of the ability.

Just like when sneak attack die, or channel energy die are taken away they are individually referenced instead of being "sneak attack 4" or "channel energy 3".

Again: RAI it's a bad argument -- the implied state is fairly obvious and should be recognized as what it is. However unlike the Sohei most fighter archetypes don't state they lock the abilities in at a specific level, only that you don't get the normal progression at the later level.

In theory this should amount to the same, however it's simply a sloppy way to do it.

It would be like if I was to program something and then reference it but leave the reference open without putting a hard limit on it.

Basically that's the way your program gets hacked (sometimes, in specific general cases, ymmv, IANAL, et al), it's sloppy programming so to speak.


Dotting for later


Abraham spalding wrote:

This is stupid and obviously not RAI. However it is also a result of very poor editing and not paying attention to second and third order consequences.

Again bad editing stops working as a reason or excuse if its been done consistently and intentionally. no matter how stupid you think it is,


Abraham spalding wrote:

That doesn't mean it isn't bad editing. Armor training 2 is listed with no reference to it and not explanation of what it is. Armor training is a singly contained ability.

Instead it should be referenced as what it is -- progression of the ability.

Just like when sneak attack die, or channel energy die are taken away they are individually referenced instead of being "sneak attack 4" or "channel energy 3".

No it should be listed, as it differentiates from abilities that are contained within the base ability. Domain spells are a good example. Both in the tables and the archetypes they go out of their way to differentiate them. the reason for that is because they are different. simple as that.


1) Armor Training 2 is not a class feature. It is (at best) a RAI reference to the level 7 increase in Armor Training.
2) Armor Training 2 is advancement of an existing class feature (Armor Training)
3) Armor Training has not been altered in any way shape or form. Nothing in it has been altered.
4) Replacing Armor Training 2 only removes your advancement, it has not altered Armor Training in any way shape or form.
5) The Sash references Armor Training, not Armor Training 2.

Simply put, this is the most RAW way of looking at it. If you want to go by absolute strict RAW, Armor Training 2 is utterly meaningless. It is a name without a class feature.


Diekssus wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

This is stupid and obviously not RAI. However it is also a result of very poor editing and not paying attention to second and third order consequences.

Again bad editing stops working as a reason or excuse if its been done consistently and intentionally. no matter how stupid you think it is,

And again intentionally not doing something right doesn't make it right. I can intentionally leave a loaded gun out where kids can reach it -- that doesn't make it right to do so.

@ your second post:

I'm not saying it shouldn't be listed, I'm saying it should be better referenced and that as it stands now you have to make a judgement call that armor training 2 references a progression of armor training instead of being its own thing.

Notice that domain spells can be replaced wholesale or piecemeal too and they are explicit on which is done.

Armor training is a single class feature with progression. Every other time when they pull away from a progression they specifically state what is lost (the domain spells at these levels, the sneak attack die increase at these levels, the channel energy die increase at this level).

They instead reference armor training 2 as its own class feature -- which doesn't exist. Nowhere is there an "armor training 2" explained in the text. Sneak attack isn't listed as "sneak attack 1" "sneak attack 2" -- it is listed as a progression.

Armor training 2 and so on should instead be listed as "Armor training increase"

OR there should be entries in the class features that goes like thus:

Quote:


Armor Training 1(Ex)

Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor.

Quote:


Armor Training 2(Ex)

At 7th level a fighter becomes more comfortable in heavier armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1 (both these changes stack with the changes provided by armor training 1).

In addition, a fighter can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor.

This clearly states what is armor training 2.

Otherwise the archetypes should say something along the lines of:

Quote:


This ability replaces all progression of the fighter's armor training class feature beyond level 3 (7 whatever).

or

Quote:
A fighter's armor training never improves after level (x).

Which clearly caps the ability and states what is lost.

As stand what Armor Training 2 is and what it fully entails is never explained and the dots are never actually connected. It is left to the reader to infer what is meant by the chart.


Gauss wrote:

1) Armor Training 2 is not a class feature. It is (at best) a RAI reference to the level 7 increase in Armor Training.

2) Armor Training 2 is advancement of an existing class feature (Armor Training)
3) Armor Training has not been altered in any way shape or form. Nothing in it has been altered.
4) Replacing Armor Training 2 only removes your advancement, it has not altered Armor Training in any way shape or form.
5) The Sash references Armor Training, not Armor Training 2.

Simply put, this is the most RAW way of looking at it. If you want to go by absolute strict RAW, Armor Training 2 is utterly meaningless. It is a name without a class feature.

I would say the only meaningless thing is you contradicting your own point. both point 2 and 3 contradict your final point. And frankly, I know the other thread was obsessed with sashes, but could we keep peoples fabric fetish out of it. As you bringing it up in no way leads to anything constructive or indicative (as seen in the other thread).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Just because some people are being morons doesn't mean a FAQ is needed.

That sort of insult is completely uncalled for. Some people here operate from different premises than you, so they come to different conclusions. Some people, myself included, are fairly new to all of this, and want to explore the system and ask questions of the devs. In the end maybe we will come to the same conclusions you have and maybe we won't, but calling people morons because they are asking questions and sharing opinions seems antithetical to what I understand to be the basic function of these boards.

I've been here long enough to see the devs post several FAQ's that contradicted your positions. You don't think that this question requires a FAQ because to you it has an obvious solution. Fine. But FAQ requests aren't directed at you. They are directed at the people who make the rules - people who have sometimes disagreed with your obvious solutions. This could be another such situation or it might not, but neither case means that the people who were wrong were morons.

I appreciate that you have strong opinions and argue aggressively for your positions. You are also very knowledgeable about this game. These are all reasons that I enjoy reading many of your posts. But sometimes, like now, you cross the line into personal insults, and I don't think that is helpful to anyone, including yourself. I would appreciate it if you would try to avoid doing so in the future.


Abraham spalding wrote:
And again intentionally not doing something right doesn't make it right. I can intentionally leave a loaded gun out where kids can reach it -- that doesn't make it right to do so.

that is only under the assumption that it is wrong. And by design it is not, you only feel that way.

Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm not saying it shouldn't be listed, I'm saying it should be better referenced and that as it stands now you have to make a judgement call that armor training 2 references a progression of armor training instead of being its own thing.

Notice that domain spells can be replaced wholesale or piecemeal too and they are explicit on which is done.

Armor training is a single class feature with progression. Every other time when they pull away from a progression they specifically state what is lost (the domain spells at these levels, the sneak attack die increase at these levels, the channel energy die increase at this level).

They instead reference armor training 2 as its own class feature -- which doesn't exist. Nowhere is there an "armor training 2" explained in the text. Sneak attack isn't listed as "sneak attack 1" "sneak attack 2" -- it is listed as a progression.

Armor training 2 and so on should instead be listed as "Armor training increase"

OR there should be entries in the class features that goes like thus:

Quote:


Armor Training 1(Ex)

Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor.

The only thing this would change is the holding of this discussion, nothing in the rules or its implementation would change. Which is where this is leading to, discussion for discussions sake.


Diekssus, I do not see how 2 and 3 contradict 5.
Armor Training 2 is advancement, losing advancement does not alter Armor Training. If you find another means to advance (such as the Sash), you can do so.

I swear, this is like people saying that because you missed a d6 of channel energy increase you cannot use an item that gives you more d6's.


Diekssus wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
And again intentionally not doing something right doesn't make it right. I can intentionally leave a loaded gun out where kids can reach it -- that doesn't make it right to do so.

that is only under the assumption that it is wrong. And by design it is not, you only feel that way.

Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm not saying it shouldn't be listed, I'm saying it should be better referenced and that as it stands now you have to make a judgement call that armor training 2 references a progression of armor training instead of being its own thing.

Notice that domain spells can be replaced wholesale or piecemeal too and they are explicit on which is done.

Armor training is a single class feature with progression. Every other time when they pull away from a progression they specifically state what is lost (the domain spells at these levels, the sneak attack die increase at these levels, the channel energy die increase at this level).

They instead reference armor training 2 as its own class feature -- which doesn't exist. Nowhere is there an "armor training 2" explained in the text. Sneak attack isn't listed as "sneak attack 1" "sneak attack 2" -- it is listed as a progression.

Armor training 2 and so on should instead be listed as "Armor training increase"

OR there should be entries in the class features that goes like thus:

Quote:


Armor Training 1(Ex)

Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor.

The only thing this would change is the holding of this discussion, nothing in the rules or its implementation would change. Which is where this is leading to, discussion for discussions sake.

That isn't true, right now Armor Training is one class feature with 3 advancements. If you do not advance the class feature is still intact. Breaking it up into 4 class features would change it into what you and others believe it works like.


Gisher wrote:
That sort of insult is completely uncalled for. Some people here operate from different premises than you, so they come to different conclusions.

+1 true enough, to much insults out there as is.

Gisher wrote:
But sometimes, like now, you cross the line into personal insults, and I don't think that is helpful to anyone, including yourself. I would appreciate it if you would try to avoid doing so in the future.

Now this I'll object to. At some point, the assumption that people might not understand something will inevitably arise. Calling someone an idiot or moron, no matter how harsh it might seem, is not a personal insult per se, considering this is the only thing he's said. I'd avoid implicating that he does. As that would make a hypocrite out of you.


Gauss wrote:

Diekssus, I do not see how 2 and 3 contradict 5.

Armor Training 2 is advancement, losing advancement does not alter Armor Training. If you find another means to advance (such as the Sash), you can do so.

I swear, this is like people saying that because you missed a d6 of channel energy increase you cannot use an item that gives you more d6's.

I never mentioned it contradicted point 5, just the last point you made, the conclusion.

Gauss wrote:
That isn't true, right now Armor Training is one class feature with 3 advancements. If you do not advance the class feature is still intact. Breaking it up into 4 class features would change it into what you and others believe it works like.

true enough, however this was not a solution that he posted, his suggestion was quite the opposite of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diekssus wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
And again intentionally not doing something right doesn't make it right. I can intentionally leave a loaded gun out where kids can reach it -- that doesn't make it right to do so.
that is only under the assumption that it is wrong. And by design it is not, you only feel that way.

Why is it not?

I have listed the reasons it is:

1. No other progression is listed that way.
2. It leaves a class feature on the chart that is not explained in the text.
3. It leaves a class feature that has no actual apparent ability.
4. It relies on the reader's ability to imply what was meant instead of stating what was meant.
5. It's the only ability referenced so oddly.

Now how do you counter those with anything other than "they did it multiple times!"

Because honestly a plea to tradition is a fallacy if that is all you are standing on.

Also I am obviously not the only one that sees it that way.

My editing changes would clarify exactly how things are supposed to work. As a writer you should never leave it to your audience to have to guess your intent and meaning. Currently you very much have to with the fighter's armor training 2 and further (honestly the same as with the weapon training).

What exactly does armor training 2 do?

Is it the progression decrease on the acp? Is it the progession increase in max dex bonus? Is it specifically the ability to wear heavy armor and move at your full speed? Is it all of the above? Is it something else entirely?

We don't know because it is never stated.

Every other chart specifically states the progression increase. The fact that armor training doesn't is sloppy and poor (bad) editing.

And again, just because they do sloppy (poor/bad) multiple times and possibly on purpose doesn't make it less sloppy.


Diekssus wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Diekssus, I do not see how 2 and 3 contradict 5.

Armor Training 2 is advancement, losing advancement does not alter Armor Training. If you find another means to advance (such as the Sash), you can do so.

I swear, this is like people saying that because you missed a d6 of channel energy increase you cannot use an item that gives you more d6's.

I never mentioned it contradicted point 5, just the last point you made, the conclusion.

Gauss wrote:
That isn't true, right now Armor Training is one class feature with 3 advancements. If you do not advance the class feature is still intact. Breaking it up into 4 class features would change it into what you and others believe it works like.
true enough, however this was not a solution that he posted, his suggestion was quite the opposite of that.

Then I REALLY dont see how it can be contradictory since there was nothing in the "conclusion" to be contradicted.

My conclusion stated that this is the most RAW way of looking at this (an opinion, cannot be contradicted).

I also said "If". That "If" does not in any way contradict points 1-5 because it is a hypothetical.

I really dislike it when people misread my posts. I do try to make them as clear as possible.

As for Abraham's post where he broke it up into 4 sections, that is exactly what it looked like to me. He was clearly demonstrating a hypothetical of 'if they wrote it like this...'.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Why is it not?

I have listed the reasons it is:

1. No other progression is listed that way.
2. It leaves a class feature on the chart that is not explained in the text.
3. It leaves a class feature that has no actual apparent ability.
4. It relies on the reader's ability to imply what was meant instead of stating what was meant.
5. It's the only ability referenced so oddly.

Now how do you counter those with anything other than "they did it multiple times!".

Tradition is not the argument I'm standing on, It is the argument that this is not something that is broken, and therefor does not need to be fixed for any other reason then to avoid the discussion. you're points give reason to why it could be changed to be more clear, not why it is wrong. for which the argument is, that you perceive it as broken. which is also not explicitly true

Abraham spalding wrote:
Also I am obviously not the only one that sees it that way.

As you seem someone who likes citing fallacies. Why use one immediately yourself.


Gauss wrote:

Then I REALLY dont see how it can be contradictory since there was nothing in the "conclusion" to be contradicted.
My conclusion stated that this is the most RAW way of looking at this (an opinion, cannot be contradicted).

first of, a opinion can be contradicted, secondonly that was still not the final point you made.

Gauss wrote:
I really dislike it when people misread my posts. I do try to make them as clear as possible.

I dislike it when people cannot read their own posts correctly. Your final point made was:

Gauss wrote:
If you want to go by absolute strict RAW, Armor Training 2 is utterly meaningless. It is a name without a class feature.

You mentioned in points 2 and 3 exactly what it was, and it was not synonymous with any of that last point. quite the contrary, unless you want to argue that the advancement of an ability is by raw utterly meaningless.

Edit: I understand that that was neither the point of your post nor its intentions. however that does not take away from what was said.


Abraham citing that he is not alone is not a fallacy.
For it to be a fallacy would be for him to state that he is not alone and therefore he is right. THAT would be a fallacy.

He made no such statement.


What does armor training 2 do?

Cite for me what it does. If it is not poorly, and sloppily edited as I have stated you will be able to cite it for me easily I am sure.

I am equally sure that such citation will match the other examples of progression listings in the rules.

My whole argument is it is poorly and badly edited. I have stated reasons why it is so. I can also point to the arguments going on right now as examples of the poor and sloppy editing leading to confusion on what exactly is supposed to be happening.

Again my assertion is the editing of this particular thing is sloppy and badly done.

Your only statement to in support of me being wrong is "they have done it the same way again" -- which is an argument to tradition. Beyond that all you have stated is I am wrong, without giving reason, or countering my points on why it is thus.


Gauss wrote:

Abraham citing that he is not alone is not a fallacy.

For it to be a fallacy would be for him to state that he is not alone and therefore he is right. THAT would be a fallacy.

He made no such statement.

Then why didn't you critique him for doing the same, don't answer, rhetorical.


Diekssus wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Then I REALLY dont see how it can be contradictory since there was nothing in the "conclusion" to be contradicted.
My conclusion stated that this is the most RAW way of looking at this (an opinion, cannot be contradicted).

first of, a opinion can be contradicted, secondonly that was still not the final point you made.

Gauss wrote:
I really dislike it when people misread my posts. I do try to make them as clear as possible.

I dislike it when people cannot read their own posts correctly. Your final point made was:

Gauss wrote:
If you want to go by absolute strict RAW, Armor Training 2 is utterly meaningless. It is a name without a class feature.
You mentioned in points 2 and 3 exactly what it was, and it was not synonymous with any of that last point. quite the contrary, unless you want to argue that the advancement of an ability is by raw utterly meaningless

Then you failed to understand my post because points 2 and 3 were not referenced by what you call my 'final point'. Nor did they reference it or "strict RAW".

Here let me spell it out for you.
I provided 5 statements, then provided a hypothetical as an alternative. The alternative is irrational (strict RAW usually is) and does not contradict the rational points made prior.

There was nothing contradictory.


Abraham spalding wrote:

What does armor training 2 do?

Cite for me what it does. If it is not poorly, and sloppily edited as I have stated you will be able to cite it for me easily I am sure.

I am equally sure that such citation will match the other examples of progression listings in the rules.

My whole argument is it is poorly and badly edited. I have stated reasons why it is so. I can also point to the arguments going on right now as examples of the poor and sloppy editing leading to confusion on what exactly is supposed to be happening.

Again my assertion is the editing of this particular thing is sloppy and badly done.

Your only statement to in support of me being wrong is "they have done it the same way again" -- which is an argument to tradition. Beyond that all you have stated is I am wrong, without giving reason, or countering my points on why it is thus.

Although this has gone rather far into meta-discussion territory. I have not said that the argument of sloppy editing would be wrong, just that it wasn't an excuse if it is done intentionally and consistently, as that is the opposite of sloppy.

And once again, sloppy editing would not detract from anything I've said.


Gauss wrote:

Then you failed to understand my post because points 2 and 3 were not referenced by what you call my 'final point'. Nor did they reference it or "strict RAW".

Here let me spell it out for you.
I provided 5 statements, then provided a hypothetical as an alternative. The alternative is irrational (strict RAW usually is) and does not contradict the rational points made prior.

There was nothing contradictory.

If you make 2 statements about the state of a term, and those conflict, that is a contradiction. Secondly, Providing an alternative would require it to be an alternative to something. Stating that something is. Is a statement, not an alternative to a statement.

Edit: also you should make sure that when assuming a pedantic tone, you at least make a correct argument.


Diekssus, I have no tone other than that that you read into my writing.

I did provide it as an alternative. Right now everyone is reading RAI as if it were RAW. There is a colossal assumption regarding what Armor Training 1-4 do. It is a reasonable assumption but it is still an assumption.
The (ridiculous) alternative is strict RAW at which point Armor Training 1-4 have no meaning whatsoever because they are not defined anywhere. They are names without stated meanings.

Anyhow, I did not contradict myself, you may think I did, you may read more into my posts than is actually there, but I didn't.


Gauss wrote:
I have no tone other than that you read into it.

The words, let me spell it out for you, are the literary equivilant of setting the tone. If you consider that reading into it, then yes. it has been written down, and read.

Gauss wrote:
I did provide it as an alternative. Right now everyone is reading RAI as if it were RAW. There is a colossal assumption regarding what Armor Training 1-4 do. It is a reasonable assumption but it is still an assumption.
considering that none of the opponents of your opinion used RAI as an argument or even mentioned it. it is not an alternative. unless you HAD cited
Gauss wrote:
Right now everyone is reading RAI as if it were RAW.

beforehand. you didn't, which left it a statement, that conflicted with your earlier points.

Gauss wrote:
Anyhow, I did not contradict myself, you may think I did, you may read more into my posts than is actually there, but I didn't.

You seem to type more into your posts than you yourself are able to read into it.


Mnn, in any case, it should be pretty obvious what the RAI is for Armour Training 2, etc.

As for the original question: when you give up a class feature for an archetype, you are treated as not having that class feature in any way or form. It's as if you went back and edited the text of the original class with the archetype alterations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And this is why I ask people to FAQ this and argue less.


Ashram wrote:
And this is why I ask people to FAQ this and argue less.

I wouldn't call this an indication. All but one of my posts actually contained an argument to the actual point, the others were all critique of the arguments itself. Arguing over bad arguments will always go on.

As I've said in the end nothing practical will change regardless of the outcome (of the argument itself or the response to the FAQ) So it will always degenerate into an argument for arguments sake.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Armor Training is one class feature that improves over time. If a class feature is not traded out then you still have it per the rules. This is not normally a problem because many class features do not increase in steps. You either have it or you do not. Trapfinding is an example.

However with the way archetypes trade out steps of a class feature for various other features each step is treated like a class feature*, and I doubt the devs intended for you to come back around and pick up the steps later just by raising your class level.

Now if a magic item/spell/etc explicity just says you get ____ that is different, but I don't think RAI was to allow for you to trade out step Y of a class feature and then get it back by raising your level via a magical item.

*There is no rules text saying treat various steps of a class ability as a class ability when dealing with archetypes. However I think that when this FAQ is answered that it will go much like the ability scores are sources unwritten rule even though there is no written rules precedent for it. I think that will be done to avoid gaming the system in some way later on, assuming it can't be done now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone should also remember that the core classes were written before most of these archetypes and magical items were conceived. It wasn't poor editing, it was not being able to see the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PokeyCA wrote:
Everyone should also remember that the core classes were written before most of these archetypes and magical items were conceived. It wasn't poor editing, it was not being able to see the future.

Caster/martial disparity strikes again. :P

Shadow Lodge

Ashram wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Raising your effective Fighter level by 4 doesn't do anything if you trade out the ability that is affected by said level. It makes you treated as 4 levels higher.
See, this is my standpoint as well. But apparently some people very vehemently disagree. And thus the need for the thread.

I don't understand - on what grounds do they disagree? This really seems plain as day.

Shadow Lodge

To be even clearer:

The sash doesn't work with a Dragoon beyond Armor Training 1 because, let's say you're 4th level wearing the sash. At 7th level, Armor Training 2 doesn't exist on the class features list - as a Dragoon, you get Spinning Lance instead.

The sash doesn't even grant you Spinning Lance at that point, because it's not Armor Training.

Armor Training wrote:
Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –4 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +4 increase of the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.
Spinning Lance wrote:
Spinning Lance (Ex): At 7th level, a dragoon may alternate attacks with the piercing head of his lance with reach, or with the butt end (treat as a club) against adjacent targets. Unlike a double weapon, the masterwork quality and magical special abilities apply to both ends of the lance, except for those weapon special abilities that apply only to edged weapons. This ability replaces armor training 2.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ Request: Archetype Class Features: Old Features Gone or Dormant? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.