jmelesky's page

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.

Yeah, that's why my RAW interpretations are "no". I'm curious about RAI (and whether RAW will be amended to match RAI if they are not aligned).

The Samurai is actually just an advanced archetype of the cavalier

I know there have been statements to the effect of "the difference between an archetype and an alternate class is whether it got an illustration", but I haven't seen any official ruling on that topic with regards to situations like this. Has there been any such ruling?

If not, it still strikes me as against RAW. Which, again, raises the "should Battle Herald have different requirements" question.

The Battle Herald PrC was clearly written with the Cavalier in mind, and just as clearly prior to the existence of the Samurai, and without regard to some archetypes. I have some guesses as to intended reading, but would really like some clarification.

The only Cavalier-specific requirement for the PrC is the Challenge class feature.

• Does the Luring Cavalier qualify for Battle Herald?

My guess is "RAW: no, RAI: yes". I ask specifically because it's the only official archetype that replaces Challenge. However, it replaces it with something that defaults back to the normal Cavalier Challenge on a certain condition, hence my RAI guess.

• Does the BH Banner ability stack with Samurai levels?

It states "cavalier levels stack with battle herald levels". Since Samurai also has a Banner ability, I'm guessing this is also "RAW: no, RAI: yes".

• What effect do the Voice of Authority and Teamwork Feat features have when the qualifying class does not have the Tactician ability?

Voice of Authority states "The battle herald's levels stack with cavalier levels for the purpose of the cavalier's tactician ability", and Teamwork Feat states "She can use her cavalier tactician ability...". RAW seems fairly clear: without the tactician ability, these features are much less useful. Is that RAI? If so, should the tactician class feature also be a PrC requirement?

Thanks for your attention.

About the DC (since the text doesn't even specify the DC), I'd go for 10 + half your inquisitor or cleric level (minimum 1) + your Wis modifier. Until this gets clarified by Paizo staff, I'll suggest this to my DM.

The text for Inquisitions actually covers this, which is why i didn't mention it in my post:

If an inquisition’s granted power calls for a saving throw, the DC of the save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the character’s inquisitor level + her Wisdom modifier. Unless otherwise stated, the caster level for granted power spell-like abilities is equal to the inquisitor’s class level.

This has been addressed previously, but it only is in regards to the inquisitions in UC. Primarily because of the no-gun archetypes for anyone but Gunslingers ruleing.

Only one of the two Inquisitions in UC have anything to do with guns, though, so it's still not clear to me why the other one is banned.

Thanks to everyone for your responses.

Inquisitions were introduced in Ultimate Magic. According to the Additional Resources for PFS, everything from UM is legal for play, with a bunch of exceptions (the exceptions make no mention of Inquisitions).

Ultimate Combat introduced two new Inquisitions. PFS Additional Resources says, under the UC section, "Inquisitions are not permitted for any inquisitor", which is a far broader statement than usual for that document.

I can see at least three ways this can be interpreted:

• Inquisitions should never have been allowed. They were allowed after UM only by an oversight, and the UC update makes it clear that they're simply disallowed.
  
• One or both of the two Inquisitions in UC aren't allowed for use in PFS, but the Inquisitions from UM are legal.
  
• The Inquisitions from UC are allowed, but only for use by clerics (who can take an Inquisition in place of a Domain). Alternately, all Inquisitions are legal for cleric use, but not for inquisitor use.

None of those interpretations are without problems.

Is there an official ruling on this?

The text of the Spellkiller Inquisition states:

Quote:

When you hit a creature with levels of alchemist or any arcane spellcasting class, or that uses spell-like abilities, you can end this effect to stagger that creature. The creature gets a saving throw against this effect on each of its turns (including the turn in which it gained the effect). A successful save ends the staggered condition.

It does not indicate whether this is a Will, Fort, or Reflex save, though. Which save should be used? Did i miss something, or is this worth an errata?

Moved this over to the Ultimate Combat Errata thread.

Reposted here, as it seems a better spot than its own thread.

The text of the Spellkiller Inquisition states:

When you hit a creature with levels of alchemist or any arcane spellcasting class, or that uses spell-like abilities, you can end this effect to stagger that creature. The creature gets a saving throw against this effect on each of its turns (including the turn in which it gained the effect). A successful save ends the staggered condition.

It does not state whether the save is Fort, Reflex, or Will. As far as i can tell, there's no ancillary text which would apply (no standard save type for Inquisition powers, nothing about the effect itself -- it's not labelled a mind-affecting effect, for example, etc.).

I can see a case being made for either Fort or Will -- Reflex would be much harder to justify. I lean towards Fort, myself.

Any official opinion on this?

The text of the Spellkiller Inquisition states:

When you hit a creature with levels of alchemist or any arcane spellcasting class, or that uses spell-like abilities, you can end this effect to stagger that creature. The creature gets a saving throw against this effect on each of its turns (including the turn in which it gained the effect). A successful save ends the staggered condition.

It does not indicate whether this is a Will, Fort, or Reflex save, though. Which save should be used? Did i miss something, or is this worth an errata?

Steve Miller wrote:

Generic Wondrous Items with spells times/day

Can you expand on this, Steve? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I assume he's talking about things like Pearls of Power and whatnot.