bverji's page

So the obvious question is there a way to interpret improvised weapons as monk weapons for the empty hand monk. Or is there any rulings that clear up EHM. I imagine not but was wondering if there was perhaps something that I was missing.

Like I said I'm not going to argue that. I have a post on this site giving a half dozen reason why I think you are misreading that rule. It literally dose not say what you are interrupting it as and all the examples given don't interpret it that way. It is ok you don't have to agree with me, but you also don't have to assert that how you interpret it is correct when I have clearly stated I don't want to discuss that.

I don't want to argue with you about that. I have had this argument on this board before. It is my opinion and the opinion of most people I play with that how you are reading the modification rules is wrong. I know it isn't a popular opinion, but if you want to know why I believe you have misinterpreted the modification rules you can do a search for that thread.

So assuming you can do both is there anything I am missing about the sensei and empty hand.

So I disagree with you on that, so assuming you can do both does anyone have an answer for me.

If you took these two ATs can you use your wisdom for improvised weapons?

empty hand is worded so terribly that it doesn't seem like it is, but it seems like it should and their are many things about it that aren't clear and have been clarified against the wording.

"instead of" means "in place of". You can use your dex in place of you strength.

If I give you the option of having apples "instead of/in place of" oranges you are still limited in your total amount of apples; no matter how many times I give you the option. It doesn't insinuate that if you choose apples you can have an unlimited amount of apples because you didn't have an orange.

Just because two feats give you the option of using dex rather then str doesn't increase your dex bonus. Giving you the option to replace str w/ dex twice doesn't mean you can stack them any more then you could trade a orange for two apples in the same meal, just because I gave you the option to replace the choice twice.

The term "instead of" doesn't insinuate giving multiple choices or applications; no matter how many times it is stated.

So, Sacred Servant alters spell casting, but it is still spell casting.

Oathbound adds spells to the spell list, but it is also still spell casting.
Does this mean that they stack, since the ability is never replaced, and in the text only "changed" by one of them?

Depends on the oathbond, but spell list and spell casting are separate class features, so they don't over lap.

SO SS would NOT stack with:

Fiends
Undeath
Chastity

I think the others are good, but I'm not overly familiar with all the paladin oathbond archetypes.

The bug has been reported to Herolab. As for any non-HL rulings I would not worry about it. 95% of us know how it works.

I'm glad you reported that bug to HL; I am sure no one else has questioned it, since 95% know how it works, over the last two years and it had been determined not a bug.

Question 1: wrote: Yes

example one: According to the FAQ it depends on how it is worded, but then the question of replacement.
Example 2: The rules already state Tiered abilities can be traded up and down the tier. So obviously you can trade out a tier. The question is can you replace another tier or the changed tier.

Question 2: Yes
example one: It would certainly depend on the wording, but yes that is part of my interpretation.
example 2: This is the question

I Even if that were true (which it is not), that in no way overrides the rule that you must take all of an archetype's abilities. If you replace the changed ability, then you no longer have it, then the archetype isn't legal.

I am going to try one more time before I stop responding to you. You are using the word take wrong. if you take a feat, and then take another feat that replaces it; it doesn't mean you didn't take the first feat. Even if it was all done at character creation

correct

Okay, let's try a different tactic:

Why do you think the designers place any restriction on combining archetypes in the first place?

FOr balance, to restrict certain combinations, but a more pertinent question is if they wanted such a narrow crossover: why allow multi classing at all? Why allow classes to shift tiered abilities to allow MANY More options?

And with that it mind, what should the conclusion be for if someone desires to both alter and swap the same ability?

explain? You mean what to do when you Change an ability and then swap it for another?

Just to throw some more water on bverji:

Per Paizo DMT, FAQs only relate to the subject they cover, so your FAQ, since that is not what it covers, has NO BEARING on this issue.

FaQs are further explanations of the rules and the rules work in conjunction with each other. What you are suggesting is like taking one sentence from a book and trying to interpret every ounce of meaning with out considering the whole book. That is literally functional illiteracy and why people come to such absurd interpretations, because they interpreted rule based off nothing other then a single sentence. The FAQ defines what is a change you can certainly use that definition to interpret what a change is in more then that one example.

is yet even another reason that supports my interpretation.

Absolutely nothing you just said overrides
must take all of them

Which I have address before. How about you get a dictionary and look up the words take, have and keep.

While you are at it look up or and nor

Please include the part that you think changes it.

Do I really need to point this out a Fourth time?

Alternate Class Features

When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but REPLACING them with equally powerful options.

It specifically says replacing

A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.

Which was further explained in the FAQ as not really being true. I assume this answer is do to the ambiguousness of "does not count as" as in the FAQ is makes clear what counting as a class feature is.

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 core class as another alternate class feature.

The word "or" is in contention. does it mean you can't do this or that, OR does it mean you can't do this and that. If it is to be interpreted as you interprete it...it really should be "nor"

For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature.

Which changes the same and replaces the same; in fact none of the examples given show that you can't replace a changed feature. they all say you can't change a change nor replace a replace....which is yet even another reason that supports my interpretation.

OR the majority of users are wrong. Which one do you think it is? I know where I would put my money.

Seriously have you read these boards? I can find thousands of instances where "the majority" were completely wrong in their interpretation, exactly because they chose to interpret a single word--phrase independent of the rules as a whole.

When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them

You know you've proven you point when people resort to calling you names, and choosing to cut off parts of quotes that disprove the point they are trying to make. Now I just need someone to attack my spelling/grammar to obtain the trifecta.

Could I be wrong? sure, but nothing presented here has been an effective argument. Everyone has failed to sufficiently address my support and the only two lines in the rules addresses the opposing view are ambiguous. What I have presented are far stronger reasons for my interpretation. It is obvious that people are responding out of a biasness for a view point rather then objectivity.

I realize there are many people out there that interpreted the rule differently, but thus far I have meet a lot of opposition over the interpretations of rules that where just obviously wrong; usually because people had bias brought from 3.5. So far,I have a very good track record for my accuracy of rule interpretation.

Prove that Hero Labs works directly with Paizo, and not, as explicitly mentioned to me in my experience with Wolf Lair in reporting issues with updates not mirrored in Hero Lab, from posts and items from Paizo given on the boards.

Right from their website• "We license the right to produce data packages for almost every game system Hero Lab supports. That means we’re working directly with the companies that produce your favorite games, so we can ensure that our software supports their games optimally."

2: You are not reading the rule as written.

Same quote over and over using the word "or"

So, if one archetype changes a feature to something else, even if it qualifies as the original feature for feats and magic items, it is still not the original class feature.

Where is this from, because it is in direct conflict with the FAQ

bverji, absolutely nothing, but your citation of them as a rules source has no bearing. They are not a rules source. They can, and have been, wrong before.

Sure, that's not the point. how often are they right and how much more often are they right then you. That's the point. Just because something isn't 100% accurate doesn't discount them as a credible source. It is argumentative to that they aren't more of an authority then you.

It's exactly this type of poor understanding about what a source is and it's significance that illustrates the weakness in your reasoning.

bverji, absolutely nothing, but your citation of them as a rules source has no bearing. They are not a rules source. They can, and have been, wrong before.

Sure, that's not the point. how often are they right and how much more often are they right then you. That's the point. Just because something isn't 100% accurate doesn't discount them as a credible source. It is argumentative to that they aren't more of an authority then you.

@Guass what makes your interpretation of the rules more valuable then a company that has an actual business relationship with Pazio, and directly talks to them about the rules? As I said before the argument they Aren't Pazio doesn't mean they don't have significantly more knowledge to base their interpretation of the rules then you. If case you have forgotten you aren't Pazio either.

Your argument is a strawman I am not saying Hero Lab are Pazio; just that they have more information to judge the rules then you, and thus is support that the interpretation I present is correct.

however your version of that interpretation dose not conform to the the rules as written for archetypes .

Easy to claim, explain how...because I have

1. shown what a change is
2. that choosing the order is consistent in the rules
3. That this is interpreted the same way by the closet known association to Pazio.

Read the rule yourself, it's as clear as day, You can not take multiple archetypes if more than one of them affect the same class feature. What part of that is ambiguous to you?

No it say you can't replace a replacement or change a change. It is pretty clear that is the intent and when you look at other rules in relation it is very clear. it is also supported by out side sources that talk directly with Piazo and have direct access to rule clarifications.

bverji is trying to read it in a very limited way.

Do you deny that there is more then one way to interpret the use of "or"?

If there is a different interpretation of the word "or" then what else do you base your interpretation of the rule?

You that is the only thing you are using to interpret your concept of the rule then it is you who is narrowly interpreting the word "or"

I provided other support to show how my interpretation of the word "or" is correct, Everyone elses "support" has been this is how the rule is so of course I am right.

Then get something from the books that mentions you can chose the order in which ability changes/replacements is allowed,

That's an overly legalistic view that ignores the context of the rule. If you can choose that order in which other things apply then there is no reason to believe you can't choose the order of changes/replacements. if it is some how different then other things it would/should be mention. That is just basic critical thinking.

It's easy to claim I have ignored other arguments, point out one.

@Nocte ex Mortis All those examples say replaced not change. If you aren't going to read the thread don't argue.

"when you decide to take archetypes its all simultaneous"

Where is that rule?

@LazarX, proclaiming that you know the rule and how it works isn't proof. You make that assumption based upon how you have played it and based upon the misinterpretation of the word "or"

while I see what you are getting at, that is not rules legal, as when taking archetypes you get everything, so Archetype 1 can't change ability B because Archetype 2 is attempting to replace it, there is no order in with you change then replace, or calculate Archetype 1 then 2, you get both all at once, if that means an ability is being targeted twice (or more) it is not compatable.

You are saying that one of them can replace a changed ability, but your assuming that the change comes before the replace, but it happens at the same time, you dont get to pick and choose.

You are assuming you can't pick the order. I am making my "assumption" based upon the fact that you get to pick the order of your creation and meeting pre-recs in almost every other instance. If you have two feats you get to pick them in order to meet the pre-req. There is no reason to assume the same isn't true with archetypes.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

but that doesn't work for replacing it with another archetype.

Based upon what? Other then the interpretation of the word "or" what do you base the fact you can't do that with another arch type? Because I provided a different use of the word "or" gave an example of it's use and provided three other reason to support this is how it works.

Bevrji, if you have fighter Bob, he wants to take both Archetype 1 and Archetype 2

Archetype 1 changes ability B and C
Archetype 2 replaces ability A and B

So you are saying that ability B was changed but Archetype 1, but since it still counts as the same basic ability you can replace it with the new ability B from Archetype 2?

Is that what you are saying?

Yes, As the FAQ explains a "change" that should be how it works.

So if archetype A modified a class ability and archetype B replaced the same class ability, you think that you could take archetype A and archetype B but you could not take archetype B and archetype A?

Not sure what you mean by "take." you would end up with only the replacement B.

If A changes the ability, but it still counts as the ability; then it can be replaced with B. You would no longer have A (just as you would not have the original class ability that would of been replaced) and would be left with B

Are you saying you can take an archetype that modifies an ability that another archetype removed?

The other way around. If an ability is changed, but still "count's as the standard ability" (as defined in the FAQ)

Then that standard ability can be replaced. There is a difference between being changed and replaced.

"A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was REPLACED for the purposes of meeting any requirements or prerequisites."

The FAQ obviously says that a change can be the same ability. but the rules say a replacement can't be the same ability. They are two distinctive things, and a change that is still the same ability can be the pre-rec for a replacement.

Another example of this distinction in the quote you provided earlier "often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but REPLACING them with equally powerful options."

you can't replace something you've replaced, ,and you can't change something you have changed, but you can replace something you have changed as long as it still counts as the pre-rec for the replacement.

Those circumstances are "none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the base class as the other alternate feature"

As I said before that interpretation is all based upon the ambiguities of the word "or." and I have provided several reason that support the rule as I have presented it.

I haven't denied what the rules said, just that you are reading them wrong. So, just repeatedly reposting the rule without explaining why it should be interpreted in a certain way, means nothing. It just validates the fact that you are reading it wrong.

" character must take all of them"

That's an obvious reverence that you can't choose which ones' to take from the original class. You have taken it out of context and tried to misapply the quote.

You have taken them all, you have just replaced one. Again, your interpretation would assume that you can't replace a class feature by other means.

"You can't alter something that isn't there."

If that was assumed then there wouldn't be the need to of addresses it specifically. Your argument assumes a singular unsupported interpretation; if their is a priority of replacing vs changing then that obviously NOT how it works.

Also, they have already insinuated that isn't the case with the ability to shift tiered class abilities.

"If you add an archetype that removes the changed ability then you haven't taken all the abilities from the first archetype"

As I said there is nothing saying that you can't alter or change an ability with a feat, prestige class, or other means; thus there is no reason to assume you can't with an arch type (other then misinterpreting the word or).

But then you are not conforming to the first archetype.

That's like say if you take a feat that changes or alters a class ability you aren't conforming to it. You make the change and then replace the change. Unless their is something in the change saying you must take the changed class ability; you are free to alter/replace.

"Crossblooded still has Bloodline Arcana. It isn't replaced. It is just altered to add both Arcanas to you. It doesn't stack with Wild Blooded."

They both change the bloodline arcana, Neither actually replace the blood line arcana because they are still considered "bloodline arcana."

Yoou can't change the same ability twice, you can only replace an ability that was changed (but still considered a pre-req for the replacement)

"Would this ruling mean a Sacred Servant paladin can also take an Oath since they both modify spell casting, but it still functions the same way? "

No because you can't change the same ability, You can only change it and then replace it all together.

If you have two changes, you can't choose which change takes place, but if the change still defines the ability as a pre-req for the replacement; then you can replace the ability all together.

I didn't say that it was a PAzio rules source just that because it has more exposer to the people who do make the rules that it has more credibility then an individual. That is how sources work. A book and a magazine may not be an expect but they have information directly from an expert. Making it more reliable then Joe-SMo. what ever bias you have against Hero Lab doesn't change that they have more access to have there questions answered then most people and thereby make their interpretations more valuable

I am not saying that it means Hero Lab has to be right, just that it gives support that interpreting the word "or" the way it is being interpreted isn't correct. claiming Hero Lab isn't Pazio is dismissive; and it completely ignores what it is through the claim of what it is not.

Pazio has an invested interest for people to view Hero Lab as being a good tool. As well as Hero Lab has regular contact and rule clarification directly from people from Pazio. Given no source directly from pazio on the rules, Hero Lab is the best collaboration and clarification on the rules there is.

Given believing the collaborative work of hero lab or some random post, it's foolishness to belive that just because Hero Lab isn't Pazio directly that it is less likely to be correct on the rules then random guy number 1 who also isn't Pazio. Whose reasoning is based on an ambiguous meaning of a single word.

I noted that the FAQ wasn't speaking about it specifically, but it does clearly define what changing and class feature is and that it doesn't change the class feature. If the class feature is still the class feature then it meats the pre-reqs for being replaced.

The idea that you can't replace a change class feature is based upon nothing other then a single interpretation of the word or; it is an overly legalistic interpretation that ignores all other possible uses of the word or, and the context of other rules. It is atrocious reading comprehension.

there are many reasons that support that you can replace a changed class feature.

1. alternate interpretation of the use of or.
2. changing a class feature doesn't change it from being the ability, and thus the ability can be replaced.
3. It is consistent with the flexibility of being able to replace staged class abilities
4. It is how it is how it is done on Hero Lab.

That interpretation is like saying if all the windows in my house were broke and I was told I could replace or fix them; the assumption is that I can't do both depending on the window. The interpretation totally ignores the context and misapplies the context of the word or.

According to the rules Malachi Silverclaw's interpretation should clearly be correct.

I don't even see how anyone can think that you can't have a free hand when using a two-handed-weapon. The only thing you are limited by is your actins and the ability to use the weapon.

As for being realistically possible, archery as presented in fantasy games aren't anywhere close to being realistic. Trying to shoot a single target, hundreds of feet away, four times in mere seconds with a longbow is so out of the scope of realistic it is absolutely absurd to use realism as your base of reasoning.

This is not correct. This is a misunderstanding of the use of the word "or."

You can't replace the same class feature and you can't change the same class features. You can replace a changed class feature in some circumstances.

FAQ
"Archetype: If an archetype replaces a class ability with a more specific version of that ability (or one that works similarly to the replaced ability), does the archetype's ability count as the original ability for the purpose of rules that improve the original ability?

It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability.
Pathfinder Design Team, 07/12/13"

The quote isn't specifically speaking about a changed feature being replaced, but it does give a clear definition of what changing the feature means and that changing it doesn't necessary mean it isn't the "same class feature." If it is still the same class feature it can then be replaced.

This is also, how it works with Hero Lab. If there is a class feature that has been changed, but isn't essential to the class (you must take it) then the changed feature can be replaced.

I understand where you are coming from, but the hair is quite a bit different then normal natural weapons because you can do combat maneuvers with it like any other appendage. Once you have some one grabbed at that point you surly can do your regular unarmed damage.

So I realize you can't use a claw/bite/ect and increase or do unarmed damage. If I make natural attacks Claw/claw/claw bite it must do damage and use attack rolls for claw/claw/bite stats. However I have been thinking of making a white haired witch monk (which is a pretty standard eastern arctype) Can I use the hair limb for my monk attacks if I forgo the natural attack all together. So I would be using the prehensile hair as I would my hands/feet/ect when making unarmed attacks.

My Justification for this is just because I have a claw doesn't mean I can't use that arm/hand and do unarmed attacks. Prehensile hair works as an extra appendage so couldn't I use it to strike with the monks unarmed attacks just like any other limb?

Well like I said it was my opinion.If you do not move in a straight line towards the opponent wouldn't that make it indirectly towards them?

not at all actually. If I move four squares forward then one square to the right I can be moving directly closer to a target, but I wouldn't be moving in a straight line. Had I moved in a straight line forward or in a straight line at a diagonal it would be impossable to reach the target even though I had plenty of movement and there where no obstacles.

Here is what the Prd says.Directly towards the target would indicate a straight line IMO and that is how we play it in my games, although it does not state a straight line is needed.

A straight line and moving directly at a target aren't really the same thing when your using a square map. It's very possible to be in open ground and not be able to get a vector (path) using a stright line. The map is limited to only 8 possible starting vectors in 15 degree ingraments which makes no since whats so ever as a similation of a rule set.

I was playing tonight and I was told that there is an errata to how charging works from the book. The book says that you just need a clear path to the taget and must charge directly at the target, but another player was saying that there was an errata that you had to charge in a straight line. Is there such an errata and if so where can I find the errata?

Thanks in advance.