this feels kinda like a patch over a hole instead of fixing the hole. :P
I'd make a list of things this invalidated but mostly it;s easier to just look at the d20pfsrd archetype tables and look at which ones alter class skills.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If things like BAB, HP, saves and skills are now considered class features
Does this also mean that if you take an archetype that alters class skills you cannot take an archetype that alters class skills even for another class?
BAB, HP, Saves and Skill points won't be class features, since as explained earlier in this thread, they are something all classes have.
The FAQ addresses the feature that adds a skill to the class skill list. At best your Paladin would lose the +3 bonus to the skill check if no other class or feature makes it a class skill. He wouldn't lose the BAB, HP, Saves, or Skill points spent.
As for your second question, if you are saying that one archetype on one class would interfere with another archetype on a different class. Then no of course not. The list of class skills is outside all classes, but classes can add skills to the list of class skills as class features. At least so far as archetypes are concerned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this feels kinda like a patch over a hole instead of fixing the hole. :PWould you prefer they cut the hole out?
that... would just make a bigger hole.
This is a classic example of Omar's Hatchet syndrome
Honestly I like that it's a complete answer. I had always thought this was how it was anyways, but it's nice having a full answer to the question (including the side FAQ answer to if adding to an option is also considered altering for the purposes of other archetypes).
Like I said, class is class. You change one part it's changed. Archtypes can't both change the same thing.
Logical ruling.
I think it might have destroyed more things than we intended, as apparently soft collisions are now not RAW either.
Gotta ask, what's Omar's hatchet syndrome? Google failed me on this one. :P
(and, Bandw2, I don't understand what you mean by soft collisions)
Gotta ask, what's Omar's hatchet syndrome? Google failed me on this one. :P
(and, Bandw2, I don't understand what you mean by soft collisions)
I assume he means things that alter the same abilities in different ways that don't (mechanically) conflict, such as the Magus archtype question earlier in the thread.
Hard collisions would be things that modify the same abilities in a way that mechanically just wouldn't work - which makes 'not compatible' a default result. Soft collisions are the cases where nothing directly contradicts and thus many people assume that they work together. I have to wonder how this affects monk archtypes.
Wait, so this would allow a Skirnir Magus to have a Blackblade?
Blackblade reduces Arcane pool while Skirnir gives more options on what Arcane Pool can affect. The two should work together, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so this would allow a Skirnir Magus to have a Blackblade?
Blackblade reduces Arcane pool while Skirnir gives more options on what Arcane Pool can affect. The two should work together, right?
No because they both alter the base ability arcane pool, so they do not stack.
Now you can't take greensting slayer and hexcrafter (they both change what arcana you can take). You also can't take hexcrafter and spellblade anymore.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I was of the opinion that two Archetypes couldn't be combined if they modified the same Class Skills, the FAQ could have been worded a little bit cleaner to express that.
The way it's worded now makes it seem like Class Skills are Class Features, and that a Paladin truly does lose the ability to be good at Diplomacy/Craft/Ride/Sense Motive/etc. if he or she becomes an Ex-Paladin. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO.
I think a better way to word it would have been an addendum to how Archetype mixing currently works:
"In addition to modifying or replacing the same Class Features, if two Archetypes modify or replace the same Base Mechanic (such as BAB, HD, Skills, etc.) then those Archetypes are likewise incompatible."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing Mark is still reading this thread.
Would it be possible to implement the wording I proposed above? Or is it really intended for Ex-Paladins to lose their Class Skills?
I always still read the threads, at least for a little while. The PDT wording has no effect on paladins; the fact of the matter is that archetypes define all of their changes as "alternate class features." For instance "Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces or alters a specific class feature from its base class." They make changes beyond the section normally titled class features, and they've done so nearly since the beginning, but the way they talk about all their changes is with respect to class features, as if they were all class features. It's possible that whoever finalized that wording all the way back in the APG wasn't thinking of the distinction at the time.
Onto taking multiple archetypes "A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the base class as the other alternate feature." There are more quotes from other archetype intros, but the upshot is that archetypes just call everything class features. As seen from the second quote, if one was to attempt to argue that changes to class skills or weapon and armor proficiencies were not "alternate class features" with respect to archetypes, then one would be in a weird situation where one couldn't gain them when taking more than one archetype (after all, it says that what happens when you take two archetypes is that you "garner additional alternate class features").
Part of this nomenclature comes from the fact that the APG itself, in the intro, wasn't yet sure about whether it wanted to be mainly about archetypes or about alternate class features (like subschools and subdomains) to begin with, so it draws back to the fact that alternate class features existed as a design idea before archetypes did. So archetype pieces are considered alternate class features, and the parts on which they operate are thus considered class features, for archetypes. The naming isn't great, but it's been there a lot longer than I have, and we're stuck with it by now.
Also, as an aside, the reason you guys saw that hatchet thing in several threads is that the poster used several aliases to post it in rapid succession. I'm not sure why. Maybe to start a new meme?
Thanks for the clarification!
(I'm not sure what the "hatchet thing" was, though)
That was in response to glass and Grellik.
It would be better to reword the section on archetypes and change the term class feature. A clearer wording would be “A character can take more than one archetype for a class as long as the archetypes do not alter the same game mechanic.”
|
Also, as an aside, the reason you guys saw that hatchet thing in several threads is that the poster used several aliases to post it in rapid succession. I'm not sure why. Maybe to start a new meme?
That was in response to glass and Grellik.Thanks for the clarification!
(I'm not sure what the "hatchet thing" was, though)
My dad's boss called him the other day, and during the conversation referred to Occam's Razor as "Omar's Hatchet." This needs to be a thing.
Omar's hatchet, I need to start throwing that around in these flamebait wars
Tin Foil Yamakah = Cole Slaad
Essentially this guy is trying to be annoying.
weird
still a lot of options people just thought were fine are apparently not.
That was in response to glass and Grellik.Thanks for the clarification!
(I'm not sure what the "hatchet thing" was, though)
Thank you, that clarifies things completely. I know tables are always free to interpret differently, but I like to know what the designers intended, and why a certain thing is ruled one way or the other--It allows me to make further interpretations without resorting to FAQ inquires :)
(Oh and Diego, thanks for the clarification on the Omar's Hatchet...silliness. And now I just saw it in another thread...sigh >.<)
It would be better to reword the section on archetypes and change the term class feature. A clearer wording would be “A character can take more than one archetype for a class as long as the archetypes do not alter the same game mechanic.”
Regrettably, while I agree that something similar would be clearer (probably not the term "game mechanic" as in your example since it's too vague, but we could think of something) since it's in so many books described that way, it would be virtually impossible to do that as opposed to clarifying (for instance, if we change one book at next printing, it's now inconsistent with all the others until they too are reprinted, which sometimes isn't for years and sometimes is never). It would be like if we decided to change the name of an APG spell. Too many other books might reference it.
|
I'm confused by the faq.
Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training.
However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features.
This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.
I'm confused if "this" is referring to the first part I separated, which appears to be the meat of the faq, or the second part, which is a clarification and directly preceeding the "this". Either way, I don't see adding skills to the skill list is modifying a feature. It looks like it's adding this newly defined "subfeature" which as the faq just stated is compatible.
A simpler patch might be to say that two archetypes cannot both exchange the same class feature, including modifying a class feature so that it now works differently. Also, an archetype cannot add or exchange part of a class feature the another archetype exchanges. It's a slight shift, that would both allow two archetypes to add or subtract class skills, as long as it's not the same class skill, and incidentally would allow the bloodlines identified as from the Wild-blooded sorcerer to work with most other archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been a much better fix (and not invalidated many builds that were assumed to work together for some time now) to have ruled that changes to feats and class skills only counted as modifying the same class feature if they changed the same feat or skill, similar to the bardic performance subset argument.
It would have also remained consistent with the Quingong monk ruling that since it only adds options, it is compatible with any other one so long as you don't try and change the same power/ability twice.
As it stands, this ruling requires rebuilds of tons of in-play PFS characters since the rules have changed, because like you said upthread, the APG didn't make the distinction between class skills and class features which have been a separate listing.
Please Mark, give some consideration to modifying this FAQ to account for this reading, so that we don't have another crane wing or flurry reaction at a later date.
Sometimes, FAQs alter the rules, often as readied actions for errata. This is certainly not one of those times; it was very clear that they were in a grey area in the past, leaning towards disallowing by the strictest RAW interpretation of what counts as altering. And I say this as someone who actually has a PFS character affected that I made four years ago long before working here (my -2 had sohei + an archetype that alters bonus feats, but sohei only adds Mounted Combat, so I thought at the time that maybe it didn't count as altering bonus feats), and I experienced table variation on whether I had them both before now, which I was always happy to acquiesce. Believe me, I made sure to bring up all possible viewpoints before the PDT made the decision. Any PFS rebuilds (including my character) are for players who knew they were in a grey area and might not stay with both archetypes. I know, since I'm one of those players.
Sometimes, FAQs alter the rules, often as readied actions for errata. This is certainly not one of those times; it was very clear that they were in a grey area in the past, leaning towards disallowing by the strictest RAW interpretation of what counts as altering. And I say this as someone who actually has a PFS character affected that I made four years ago long before working here (my -2 had sohei + an archetype that alters bonus feats, but sohei only adds Mounted Combat, so I thought at the time that maybe it didn't count as altering bonus feats), and I experienced table variation on whether I had them both before now, which I was always happy to acquiesce. Believe me, I made sure to bring up all possible viewpoints before the PDT made the decision. Any PFS rebuilds (including my character) are for players who knew they were in a grey area and might not stay with both archetypes. I know, since I'm one of those players.It would have been a much better fix (and not invalidated many builds that were assumed to work together for some time now) to have ruled that changes to feats and class skills only counted as modifying the same class feature if they changed the same feat or skill, similar to the bardic performance subset argument.
It would have also remained consistent with the Quingong monk ruling that since it only adds options, it is compatible with any other one so long as you don't try and change the same power/ability twice.
As it stands, this ruling requires rebuilds of tons of in-play PFS characters since the rules have changed, because like you said upthread, the APG didn't make the distinction between class skills and class features which have been a separate listing.
Please Mark, give some consideration to modifying this FAQ to account for this reading, so that we don't have another crane wing or flurry reaction at a later date.
If you don't mind my asking what do you mean by grey area?
Sometimes, FAQs alter the rules, often as readied actions for errata. This is certainly not one of those times; it was very clear that they were in a grey area in the past, leaning towards disallowing by the strictest RAW interpretation of what counts as altering. And I say this as someone who actually has a PFS character affected that I made four years ago long before working here (my -2 had sohei + an archetype that alters bonus feats, but sohei only adds Mounted Combat, so I thought at the time that maybe it didn't count as altering bonus feats), and I experienced table variation on whether I had them both before now, which I was always happy to acquiesce. Believe me, I made sure to bring up all possible viewpoints before the PDT made the decision. Any PFS rebuilds (including my character) are for players who knew they were in a grey area and might not stay with both archetypes. I know, since I'm one of those players.It would have been a much better fix (and not invalidated many builds that were assumed to work together for some time now) to have ruled that changes to feats and class skills only counted as modifying the same class feature if they changed the same feat or skill, similar to the bardic performance subset argument.
It would have also remained consistent with the Quingong monk ruling that since it only adds options, it is compatible with any other one so long as you don't try and change the same power/ability twice.
As it stands, this ruling requires rebuilds of tons of in-play PFS characters since the rules have changed, because like you said upthread, the APG didn't make the distinction between class skills and class features which have been a separate listing.
Please Mark, give some consideration to modifying this FAQ to account for this reading, so that we don't have another crane wing or flurry reaction at a later date.
If you don't mind my asking what do you mean by grey area?
I mean, it was, until the FAQ, a grey area because while a strict reading of "alter" would imply exactly what the FAQ says, it was possible with wishful thinking, like my own when building that character, that it didn't mean to include situations where two alterations manage to politely sidestep each other without interacting with each other in any way, despite both involving the same class feature (which granted, would be a ruling that would be prone to edge cases, judgment calls, and slippery slopes).
My post keeps getting eaten. Basically what would it take to get the language tightened up?
Edge cases?
After rereading the FAQ this makes things even less clear. On the one hand it states that an archetype that modifies a subfeature like adding or replacing a specific bardic performance is legal. Then it goes on to say that adding or changing a single subfeature on a list is not legal? This is contradictory and confusing to say the least. There is no underlying logic to this and it will require another ruling for each individual case. Why are bardic performances allowed and not class skills? Does adding or changing a single spell on a list count? How about bonuses to the same save? Does the fact that the archetype gives a bonus feat where the base class did not prevent it from stacking with any other archetype that gives a bonus feat? I could come up with a ton more questions that this FAQ causes.
Worse yet you have not answered the question of what happens to classes that lose class features. You stated the ruling only covered archetypes, but does that mean that there are different definitions for class feature depending on what is being discussed? Or do we need to start a new thread and get a FAQ on the FAQ?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if one archetype replaces inspire courage, and another replaces dirge of doom, are they an invalid combination (since both are types of bardic performance)?Yes. Both are acting on the same class feature. which is bardic performance. Bardic performance is a single class feature which matures over the levels of bardic class advancement. Each single performnce is not a separate class feature.
This is exactly opposite of what the FAQ says:
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training.
Additionally, individual skills can be considered subfeatures of Class Skills, so an archetype that changes out diplomacy for intimidate would be compatible with another archetype that changes handle animal for heal. However, neither of those would be compatible with the archetype that completely changed out the skill load out or the archetype that adds new class skills to the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if one archetype replaces inspire courage, and another replaces dirge of doom, are they an invalid combination (since both are types of bardic performance)?Yes. Both are acting on the same class feature. which is bardic performance. Bardic performance is a single class feature which matures over the levels of bardic class advancement. Each single performnce is not a separate class feature.This is exactly opposite of what the FAQ says:
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training.Additionally, individual skills can be considered subfeatures of Class Skills, so an archetype that changes out diplomacy for intimidate would be compatible with another archetype that changes handle animal for heal. However, neither of those would be compatible with the archetype that completely changed out the skill load out or the archetype that adds new class skills to the list.
I'm going to be honest here. You are correct, your example is spot on and well written.
It made my head hurt. As much as I love this game and try to play it the right way I think I need to fall back into the James Jacobs camp of treating the rules a bit more liberally to focus on the fun.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Edge cases?
Table Variance, Multiple interpretations of RAW, etc. Any time two people read the same rule and come to two different interpretations as to what the meaning of the rule actually is. AKA "a grey area".
1) Why are bardic performances allowed and not class skills?
2) Does adding or changing a single spell on a list count?
3) How about bonuses to the same save?
4) Does the fact that the archetype gives a bonus feat where the base class did not prevent it from stacking with any other archetype that gives a bonus feat?
5) Worse yet you have not answered the question of what happens to classes that lose class features.
I think all of these have been directly addressed in this thread by Mark's posts. I'll answer based on his previous answers.
1) Swapping out Fascinate for an ability that deals 99d10 damage is fine if the other archetype swaps out Suggestion for an ability to turn lead into gold. But adding or removing a class skill is modifying your class Skill list. Class Skill List isn't a class feature like Bardic Music that has subfeatures. It is a class mechanic that has a true or false only for each skill.
2) It does count and would prevent stacking of those archetypes for the same reason as the class skill list blocks.
3) Could you give me an example, I don't think I'm following.
4) Sohei and another Monk that both modify bonus feat lists will not stack before or after this change. It was the example table variance issue he presented.
5) If your Paladin loses class features he loses access. Class Skill list is not a class feature. It counts as one for the purpose of stacking archetypes, but your Paladin would not lose his +3 to a skill if he loses access to spells and lay on hands due to his bad deed.
So if one archetype replaces inspire courage, and another replaces dirge of doom, are they an invalid combination (since both are types of bardic performance)?
If they only replace Inspire on one and Dirge on the other and no other conflicts then they are valid as they both modify subfeatures.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Additionally, individual skills can be considered subfeatures of Class Skills, so an archetype that changes out diplomacy for intimidate would be compatible with another archetype that changes handle animal for heal.
I compared the Class Skill list to the Bonus Feat list. Two archetypes that add a bonus feat to the bonus feat list would be incompatible since both altered the bonus feat list. Likewise, it would have been my interpretation that two that swap out class skills would also be considered to be modifying the same class feature: the class skill list.
Ok, just making sure I've got this right.
Archetypes that alter class features with subfeatures like say Bloodline Powers, can be stacked as long as no two replace the same the level of Bloodline Power.
Example:
The Sage Wildblooded Archetyped trades out the level 1 Bloodline power, while the Razmiran Archetype trades out the 9th. Because these are subfeatures of the Bloodline Power class feature, they can be traded out ala "In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures."
Correct?
Additionally, individual skills can be considered subfeatures of Class Skills, so an archetype that changes out diplomacy for intimidate would be compatible with another archetype that changes handle animal for heal.I compared the Class Skill list to the Bonus Feat list. Two archetypes that add a bonus feat to the bonus feat list would be incompatible since both altered the bonus feat list. Likewise, it would have been my interpretation that two that swap out class skills would also be considered to be modifying the same class feature: the class skill list.
I get where you're coming from, but this interpretation conflicts with the subfeatures rule. If we're consistent with your ruling, then you wouldn't be able to change out two subfeatures of bardic performances, which is clearly wrong though the FAQ.
The bonus feats I understand, as there aren't any subfeatures within bonus feats. But there are subfeatures wth class skills, just like there are subfeatures with bardic performances.
About the only time I could see this working with bonus feats is in a case where specific feats are listed - like the monk - and then two archetypes change out specific yet different feats for another within that list. In this case, we'reloing at a subfeatures within the overall bonus feat feature of the class. And I'm not even sure a case like this even exists.
Additionally, due to this new ruling, simply adding a feat to a list or adding a class skill to the list of skills is enough to make it so it isn't comparable with any other archetype that also alters those features (or subfeatures!).
Ok, just making sure I've got this right.
Archetypes that alter class features with subfeatures like say Bloodline Powers, can be stacked as long as no two replace the same the level of Bloodline Power.
Example:
The Sage Wildblooded Archetyped trades out the level 1 Bloodline power, while the Razmiran Archetype trades out the 9th. Because these are subfeatures of the Bloodline Power class feature, they can be traded out ala "In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures."
Correct?
I believe so, barring any other evidence as yet presented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, those of you attempting to bend the ruling on subfeatures to have it apply to class skills and bonus feats are treading on dangerous ground. Part of getting agreement from the whole PDT to codify the subfeatures thing in the FAQ (previously it only existed in an Ask JJ thread, even though a fair number of people, myself included [you can even see old threads with Rogue Eidolon on them] wanted it to be the answer) was that I promised "No one will think this opens the door to a slippery slope. It's clear-cut that this only applies to things like deeds and bardic performance with a bunch of additional abilities listed on the 1-20 character chart." If I'm wrong and you guys keep at it, it's not impossible we'll see a retraction to disallow subfeatures within bardic performance, etc.
Contributor
|
I'm just incredibly confused by the entire FAQ. I love combining archetypes... but now I have no idea what is or isn't compatible.
I feel like we need a blog post (for which there is no space) or for a staff member (presumably you, Mark) to have the authority to officially answer questions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an expo to be at (now I'll be late by a few minutes :( ), so I must be brief, but I at least have the authority to explain what a FAQ already says. The FAQ says:
1) If you have a class feature that is broken into separate features with their names in italics (like bardic performance) or that are gained at multiple levels on the character chart (like weapon training), you can alter those child features separately.
2) Either way, if you mess with a parent feature (such as changing the rounds of bardic performance, or changing the ability score you use for deeds), no stacking.
3) Changing which class skills you have is messing with a parent feature. So is changing which bonus feats are on your list. If you do one of those, you can't take another archetype that also does anything with class skills or bonus feats, respectively. For instance, a fighter archetype that adds Iron Will to the list of fighter bonus feats would not stack with one that removed the 2nd level bonus feat. But the aforementioned "remove the 2nd level bonus feat" archetype would stack with one that removes the 4th level bonus feat.
So if my archetype increases BP rounds to 5/level, I can't take an archetype that replaces any part of bardic performance?
Is this correct?
Thank you for answering our questions.
Yes, correct. And now I'm out the door! Sorry.
I appear to have started something horrible. I do apologize for my question.