|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yay or nay by raw? Concerning text in italics.
Bracers of The Merciful Knight:
These golden bracers are engraved with images of celestial creatures.
When worn by a paladin, he is considered four levels higher for the purposes of determining the uses per day and healing provided by his lay on hands class feature. Additionally, once per day, the wearer can infuse a use of lay on hands with additional power, providing relief as a lesser restoration spell.
Antipladin Relevant Text (for touch of corruption):
Alternatively, an antipaladin can use this power to heal undead creatures, restoring 1d6 hit points for every two levels the antipaladin possesses. This ability is modified by any feat, spell, or effect that specifically works with the lay on hands paladin class feature. For example, the Extra Lay On Hands feat grants an antipaladin 2 additional uses of the touch of corruption class feature.
Insinuator Antipaladin Archetype Relevant Text:
Selfish Healing (Su)
Beginning at 2nd level, an insinuator can heal his wounds by touch. This is treated exactly like the paladin's lay on hands class feature, except it can be used only to heal the insinuator and cannot be used on other creatures.
This ability replaces touch of corruption.
By Raw, no. Despite their same similarities, an anti-paladin is not a paladin, any more than a druid is the same as a cleric.
The operative clause is: "When worn by a paladin".
By Raw, no. Despite their same similarities, an anti-paladin is not a paladin, any more than a druid is the same as a cleric.
The operative clause is: "When worn by a paladin".
What if the antipaladin tried to use it via a Use Magic Device (UMD) check, to emulate a class feature (namely, being a paladin)?
It's not having the class feature that is the problem. It's that the bracers are restricted to being used by a certain class.
So you'd have to use UMD to simulate being a paladin first, which I don't believe is possible. The restriction isn't "those having lay on hands", it's restricted to paladins only.
These bracers have similiar text to a holy avenger, which is also restricted by class.
So, while I think you may be able to convince a GM that emulating a class feature might work, by RAW, it's not possible.
|
|
That would work. Weird but it works.
That is clever. Annoying, but it would work.
It still seems strange to me though. Paizo clearly thought enough to indicate that an Antipaladin's revised LoH (Touch, or selfish) is the same as a Paladin's. Pretty much every (I think, needs verification) item/feat/spell involving smite, LoH, or channel could be used by an antipladin yet this one stands out. Personally I think it's just older item text that wasn't on the radar when this very new archetype came out.
|
|
It's not having the class feature that is the problem. It's that the bracers are restricted to being used by a certain class.
So you'd have to use UMD to simulate being a paladin first, which I don't believe is possible. The restriction isn't "those having lay on hands", it's restricted to paladins only.
These bracers have similiar text to a holy avenger, which is also restricted by class.
So, while I think you may be able to convince a GM that emulating a class feature might work, by RAW, it's not possible.
Yeah, good points. The bracers are, after all, bright frigging gold and engraved with celestial creatures. Maybe an antipaladin born into it wouldn't pick them up but perhaps one who fell.
Would Paizo's note on the antipaladin's relationship to the paladin class have any impact?
"Note: The antipaladin is an alternate class for the paladin core class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can’t truly be considered a new character class by its own right. By the changes made here, though, the details and tones of the paladin class are shifted in a completely opposite direction and captures an entirely different fantasy theme, without needlessly designing an entire new class. While a redesign of sorts, this alternate class can be used just as any of the other base classes."
Bolding emphasis mine.
|
|
Unless they changed it, an Alternate Class is just a big archetype. A Ninja is a Rogue, a Samurai is a Cavalier and an Antipaladin is a Paladin, just as an Eldritch Scoundral is a Rogue, a Daring Champion is a Cavalier and a Sacred Servant is a Paladin.By Raw, no. Despite their same similarities, an anti-paladin is not a paladin, any more than a druid is the same as a cleric.
The operative clause is: "When worn by a paladin".
Yes, this was my thinking as well in regards to items.
Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class—a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa.
Bolding mine
If your second quote above makes Anti-paladins just "Chaotic Evil Paladins per an archetype", then you could use UMD to emulate a class feature, and use it.
But "operates exactly as a base class" and "being a base class" aren't synonymous.
I'd look for a more definitive statement, personally.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK so I did find a few relevant quotes from James Jacobs that may help clear up my initial question.
The question everyone has been wondering is whether or not alternate classes are like archetypes in that they can use the feats, traits, etc. as the primary class even when the requirement has the primary class as a requirement as long as archetype/alternate class has the ability to utilize the feat, trait, etc? For example using the second question in my last post as an example.
Alternate classes like the antipaladin, ninja, and samurai ARE essentially archetypes. They're just archetypes for which we went through and gave you the full level advancement chart for. And artwork too! So as long as they didn't give up a class feature that is a requirement for a feat or whatever... yup... they still can take that feat/trait/thing.
-------
What's the difference between an alternate class and a core class? I could have sworn I heard Erik Mona say at last year's Paizocon Banquet that the Magus would be the last new class for a while.
Someone please clarify this. Class glut is pretty worrisome to me as it seemed to be a huge contributor to the decline of 3.5 in popularity and focus during its last years.
TamIt's a pretty subtle difference, really, that almost counts as a philosophical difference as much as it is a game design difference. But here goes:
BASE CLASS: This is a class that features at its heart a unique ability, power, or method of doing something. That can be the ability to cast arcane spells from a spellbook, the ability to do sneak attacks, the ability to use bardic music, the ability to do alchemy stunts, or whatever. With each base class we build, it becomes tougher and tougher to come up with a new mechanic that helps to set that class apart. As far as multiclassing works, you can multiclass between any base class without restriction, because each class has its own basic shtick. You can't multiclass into the same base class though; you can't be a 1st level rogue and then multiclass into rogue and therefore gain 2d6 sneak attack at 2nd level instead of gaining evasion. That might seem obvious, but it's important to keep in mind when we move on to alternative classes.
ALTERNATE CLASSES: In earlier editions of this game, we might have called these "sub-classes." An alternate class does NOT have a significant new core ability. It's basically just a glorified archetype. The antipaladin is a great example; looking at the antipaladin, you can see that it basically functions the same way as a paladin. It has a smite ability, it has an ability to channel energy with its touch, and has an ability to put "riders" on that touch ability. It's different than the paladin, but it's also obviously just a VARIANT paladin. Technically, we could stat up ALL of the archetypes as alternate classes... but since most archetypes only swap out a few abilities, that'd kinda be a waste of space. Also... you can't multiclass from a class into that class's alternate class; you can't multiclass from paladin into antipaladin, for example (even if you ignore the alignment restrictions, you still can't; it's the same class).
We've pretty thoroughly explored the concept of new base classes and archetypes by now... but we haven't explored the concept of an alternate class beyond the antipaladin. With Ultimate Combat, we're exploring the concept three times, with the samurai, the ninja, and the gunslinger. (The gunslinger, actually, might morph into a full base class; guns are new enough of a concept to the game that that MIGHT be enough to justify a whole new class—we'll see.)
So while the difference between a base class and an alternate class might seem pedantic... there IS a difference. Whether or not the game and its players will accept more alternate classes, or whether folks will just treat things as if there's no difference between base classes and alternate classes... that's what Ultimate Combat will tell us.
That seems to be pretty definitive. Use UMD and go for it.
antipaladin iss an alternate to paladin, not an archetype, and as the name implies, it's not only not a paladin, it's the opposite of a paladin, ergo the need for UMD and simulating being a paladin.
If antipaladin counts as an archetype of a paladin wouldnt you be able to use it without the UMD? A hospitaler paladin is still a paladin. An antipaladin is still a paladin. No UMD required.
You may have a point here. While touch of corruption does say that it is able to be modified by la y on hands specific feats. Given it is the same effect (modifying a class ability) modified by different things, I dont see any reason why it shouldn't.
If antipaladin counts as an archetype of a paladin wouldnt you be able to use it without the UMD? A hospitaler paladin is still a paladin. An antipaladin is still a paladin. No UMD required.
But an Antipaladin "swapped out" LoH for ToC, so UMD is necessary to emulate a class feature.
EDIT: I'm not familiar with the antipaladin archetypes, so I'm not sure what the OP wants to do works, but he does still need LoH to "use" the item, thus UMD comes into play. Just like if there was some magic belt that did something separate from Evasion but required Evasion to use the item, a rogue with an archetype that swapped out Evasion would need UMD to emulate the missing class feature.
I see now.