Can a Ninja take Rogue archetypes?

Assuming he still has to class feature to replace, like in the case of Scout.

Yes. A Ninja is, for all practical purposes, a type of rogue. You can't even multi class as a rogue/ninja because it would be multiclassing as rogue/rogue. You can also take racial favored bonuses for rogue.

Yes. A Ninja is, for all practical purposes, a type of rogue. You can't even multi class as a rogue/ninja because it would be multiclassing as rogue/rogue. You can also take racial favored bonuses for rogue.

Could you direct me to the passage that says this? I'm trying to disprove some arsehat whose logic is "nuh uh! It says you can't multiclass between rogue and ninja, therefore ninja can't take the archetypes!"

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the call on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team, and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

Sorry if it feels like that was aimed at blaming you or something, or that you're the reason for it. If I am factually mistaken about things then I apologize for my ignorance. But as far as I'm aware it was the general thought that Ninja's could do anything rogues do, FCB, archetypes, magic items. The first I heard to counter that idea was from you and then the PFS team. Thus laying out the history of where we stand on this alternate class thing. Again I didn't mean to imply blame or fault, just laying out what happened.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the call on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team, and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

Sorry if it feels like that was aimed at blaming you or something, or that you're the reason for it. If I am factually mistaken about things then I apologize for my ignorance. But as far as I'm aware it was the general thought that Ninja's could do anything rogues do, FCB, archetypes, magic items. The first I heard to counter that idea was from you and then the PFS team. Thus laying out the history of where we stand on this alternate class thing. Again I didn't mean to imply blame or fault, just laying out what happened.

I remember when I was making my ninja for PFS, I was frustrated that there was no solid ruling on whether ninjas could use those other components, as "the general wisdom" would probably not be good enough for a GM who believed otherwise. As I think I mentioned, I still hope people will click the FAQ button on your FAQ so we can get that up clearly in rules language and be sure that ninjas can use all that rogue stuff.

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

1) Since the incident and clarifications I haven't once posted that the PFS team made the unchained ruling alone, I often said that they probably asked someone on the design team about it and just went with that answer.

2) When you are often said not to quote you as rules when it's your account posting it's only logical to assume that you're not posting official rules stuff in behalf of the entire team when you post. Perhaps if you had shared this knowledge that the team were well aware of the issue and had vetted it already OR that your post was to be official in representing the entire design team.
2.1) BTW there's still the posts by Jason saying they are just archetypes, linked in other thread. So it's not like the ACG was the first to say they are archetypes.

3)If alternate classes aren't their base class then why in the rules would they qualify for FCB or archetypes? Nothing in the alternate class rules would indicate that they could. If you have some knowledge or rule to support your claim I'd appreciate it. But as it stands with what I know of and understand, it's very much up for question what does and doesn't work for ninjas. Now if that clarifying post is the voice of the entire design team and meant to be official and not just your personal post then please clarify that too :D

4) I would hate to see you post less. I really am sorry if my posts are upsetting to you. The changes you've brought in and your openness with the forums have been some of my most favorite things.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

1) Since the incident and clarifications I haven't once posted that the PFS team made the unchained ruling alone, I often said that they probably asked someone on the design team about it and just went with that answer.

2) When you are often said not to quote you as rules when it's your account posting it's only logical to assume that you're not posting official rules stuff in behalf of the entire team when you post. Perhaps if you had shared this knowledge that the team were well aware of the issue and had vetted it already OR that your post was to be official in representing the entire design...

Yeah, it's possible I should have posted that one as PDT. In this case, given the way people are framing it, I certainly regret not doing that, though I'm actually not sure of the protocol when it isn't for a FAQ. Live and learn, I suppose!

I guess it's true that if I've gone a year and only had one post that caused people to get a seriously incorrect impression of what was going on, that's a pretty good record overall. I probably made over 1000 posts, so something like 99.9% rate of not doing that. Seems like no reason to cut down or try to be too hypervigilant (which would also cut down due to taking longer), really.

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

So can Unchained Rogue take Core Rogue archetypes? How about Unchained Rogue (Ninja)?

The fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

It's what happened to Sean all over again. In other words, this is why we can't have nice things.

:-/

Mark Seifter wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

So can Unchained Rogue take Core Rogue archetypes? How about Unchained Rogue (Ninja)?

So it seems that unchained rogue is an alternate class to rogue and ninja is an alternate class to rogue and that you can't mix them. I no longer know what I can attribute to what Mark says and what the official stance is. But this is the impression I have from what has been posted.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

So can Unchained Rogue take Core Rogue archetypes? How about Unchained Rogue (Ninja)?

Unchained rogue says it can take rogue archetypes right in the book, which actually now that I think of it is an excellent precedent for alternate classes at least sometimes being able to take archetypes of their original class (granted, the Unchained classes were not literally tagged as alternate classes by name, so it isn't a perfect precedent, but still, good catch!).

It is my personal opinion (in agreement with the general forum consensus) that ninjas can take rogue archetypes, though I'd like to set it in stone (you're right that the Unchained rogue grants good precedent). I am not sure what the design team thinks about that one; I suspect they would agree.

However, in the case of alternate classes taking other alternate classes, that doesn't work (and in that, I know the design team agrees because we discussed it). We have so few alternate classes right now that the only example of a class with more than one is rogue (ninja and Unchained rogue).

Barathos wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

So can Unchained Rogue take Core Rogue archetypes? How about Unchained Rogue (Ninja)?

So it seems that unchained rogue is an alternate class to rogue and ninja is an alternate class to rogue and that you can't mix them. I no longer know what I can attribute to what Mark says and what the official stance is. But this is the impression I have from what has been posted.

Yeah, sorry about the provenance. I think I managed to separate out each factor and explain the provenance in my response to Barathos. Let me know if there are any tangles in provenance in that post.

Mark Seifter wrote:

The fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

It's what happened to Sean all over again. In other words, this is why we can't have nice things.

:-/

Well when one says that things they post are just them saying their opinion, and then they make a post saying something, and they don't say that this time it's official or that they've discussed it with everyone in the design team already and that there is a common consensus on this view. Then it's easy to see why someone would have attributed it to such a poster and not the design team.

Yeah, sorry about the provenance. I think I managed to separate out each factor and explain the provenance in my response to Barathos. Let me know if there are any tangles in provenance in that post.

No worries, I only "kind of" have an issue with it now with this issue, since you're saying some previous stuff is official, while some stuff is still just your view. On everything else I will still assume that it's just you posting unless you say otherwise.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Yeah, sorry about the provenance. I think I managed to separate out each factor and explain the provenance in my response to Barathos. Let me know if there are any tangles in provenance in that post.

No worries, I only "kind of" have an issue with it now with this issue, since you're saying some previous stuff is official, while some stuff is still just your view. On everything else I will still assume that it's just you posting unless you say otherwise.

I will try very hard to make it clearer when it's a PDT thing in the future (possibly by seeing if we should just do a PDT post in those cases; seems like best practice). On that particular day, a few of us were trying to answer a lot of forum questions that burst forth in a very short period of time.

You're right that staff posts aren't official declarations.

EDIT: Having just checked back to those threads, I have also now realized that I never actually made a rules adjudication at all, but merely listed some quotes and evidence that alt classes do at least one thing differently than archetypes (in that they can have their own archetypes that alter or replace the same ability while still stacking) and mentioned that we talked about the ACG thing and marked it for errata, so I feel better in that all this discussion had led me to remember incorrectly that I had actually posted a rules adjudication using my own account or something like that.

Since the topic of our own memories of the summary of events (and how they can mislead us) has come up, just to make it clear, Chess Pwn, my first post in this thread was aimed at examining my posting/communication style, given that the summary of events as remembered by the fans was so incompatible with the events that actually happened here. It was not meant as a condemnation of your memory, or being mad that this is how you remembered it, or anything like that; chances are if you got it wrong, it was due to communication from our end. The way it was summarized in your mind was data to me; my level/technique of posting is the experimental variable.

Mark, I (and I believe most others) are very appreciative of all the responses you give.

We do have a habit of trying to qualify any "dev quotes" as fully as we can, so as to not give misinformation or overstate the "legality" of such quotes. Sometimes we get it a bit wrong, but I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing to give us insights, official or otherwise.

Precedents:

The antipaladin is an alternate 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 found in the first part of this chapter.

The antipaladin, the only alternate class available in the CRB, establishes the concept that it is not a "new class" but rather it is a Paladin, but with a polar opposite theme.

Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While still technically an archetype, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class.

The ACG clearly and explicitly states that an Alternate class is an archetype of the base class; just one that makes more drastic changes than archetypes typically cover. And, just as you can combine multiple archetypes that don't modify the same class features, you can take Rogue archetypes that only change Rogue features not removed by the Ninja alternate class archetype. This is why they don't ever bother to list alternate favored class bonuses for alternate classes because the base class bonus still applies. The only time they need to list an archetype specifically for an alternate class is when it trades out abilities that only the alternate class has; otherwise all archetypes that apply to the base class also apply to the alternate class (provided the alternate class has the class features to trade/change).

The ACG clearly and explicitly states that an Alternate class is an archetype of the base class

In case you were unaware, or for anyone else who isn't, that text is in error and is marked for errata. <See here>

EDIT: I was wondering where the "technically an archetype" quote even came from for a while. It isn't even in rules text; it's in the class design section. I've talked to the team and we've marked it for errata.

<Or here, upthread>

Having just checked back to those threads, I have also now realized that I never actually made a rules adjudication at all, but merely listed some quotes and evidence that alt classes do at least one thing differently than archetypes (in that they can have their own archetypes that alter or replace the same ability while still stacking) and mentioned that we talked about the ACG thing and marked it for errata ...

The rules text Seifter quotes from UC states that Alternate Classes are "exactly as a base class". While this might be somewhat of a cumbersome construction, it still leads to the concept that the Alternate Class satisfies rules elements just as its associated base class does. ACG further goes on to clarify that an Alternate Class functions just like a very expansive archetype and the only reason it is presented as a class of its own is so that you don't have to flip back and forth between the Base and Alternate class entries; even base class abilities that are not replaced are listed under the Alternate Class. That makes perfect sense and I'm not seeing where Seifter's confusion or suspicion that the line is even in need of errata is coming from.

It's not even a problem with archetypes of alternate classes because they are, technically, not replacing the same class ability. For example; Samurai, at level 1, gains Resolve whereas Cavalier, at level 1, gains Tactician. You could say that Samurai, as an archetype, replaces Tactician. Now lets say we have a hypothetical archetype for the Samurai which replaces Resolve; we'll call it Bladespam for the sake of example. Now, Resolve replaced Tactician, but does Bladespam also replace Tactician? No; Bladespam replaces Resolve (which just so happens to replace Tactician). Another way to look at it is that it's changing the archetype such that, instead of replacing Tactician with Resolve, you're replacing Tactician with Bladespam instead; still no conflict of replacement. Honestly, it seems that Seifter's concerns are misplaced and there is probably a reason that the errata hasn't yet been made. Remember, "marked for errata" is just like "marked for FAQ"; it may very well come back with the answer, "no response required".

Edit: Furthermore, Jason Bulmahn seems to think along lines that say the ACG is not in error:

Hi there all,

James does a pretty good job explaining the point behind alternate classes here, but I want to further explain a few points.

- Alternate classes are really just expanded archtypes. The distinction is that for an alternate class, we represent all of the rules needed to run the class. It is similar to its base, but has a significant number of swaps. There are certainly some archtypes that could have received this treatment, but we chose to leave them as more abbreviated write ups.

- Alternate classes live in the same design niche as their base class. This is the most important part. Although the ninja and the rogue, for example, have a number of differences, they have a number of conceptual and rules niches in common. We did not want to have to invent another version of sneak attack, for example, when the current one works fine for both. Had we invented another, it would have been similar but undoubtedly different in power to sneak attack, which is a bad place to be.

One last thing.. the adversarial tone in this thread (and a few others) can stop now. I don't want to have to close down threads.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

And I'm pretty sure the opinion of the Lead Designer of the game is a bit more telling on the subject.

... I'm not seeing where Seifter's confusion or suspicion that the line is even in need of errata is coming from ...

... Honestly, it seems that Seifter's concerns ...

See upthread. Like, right before this.

Chess Pwn wrote:

It used to be thought that alternate classes were just big archetypes for their base classes, Advance Class Guide even said as much. But then Mark and PFS came out and said that the Ninja and alternate classes are different than their base classes. Thus effectively saying you can't take the FCB or archetypes.

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think.

There's no reason to attribute the ruling on Unchained ninja to the PFS team. It was made by the entire design team (actually we had discussed it much earlier, before sending off the book, and concluded that it was impossible without a GM specifically OKing, having not been aware of the misprint in the ACG class design section), and the fact that this strange meme attributing it to me (and PFS staff) keeps spreading due to the fact that I was the one being responsive on the boards is making me think I may have to stop posting so much on the boards and getting responses, perhaps limiting responses to PDT posts for FAQ Friday, if it isn't clear to people that we make calls as a team without using the PDT account.

Also, again, alternate classes being unable to take other alternate classes of the same base class does not mean they can't take FCB or archetypes.

And I'm pretty sure the opinion of the Lead Designer of the game is a bit more telling on the subject.

Check the dates. The post from Jason you link is from January 2011. I'd say we can be pretty sure that Mark's report of the design team's current and deliberate position is a lot more "telling" than a post from four and a half years ago. :-)

I have a thread here that I'm trying to get FAQs for to get it answered, but it also has all the pertinent info I think. So instead of debating here, debate there and FAQ it when you do :D

Precedents:

CRB/class/Paladin wrote:

The antipaladin is an alternate 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 found in the first part of this chapter.

The antipaladin, the only alternate class available in the CRB, establishes the concept that it is not a "new class" but rather it is a Paladin, but with a polar opposite theme.

ACG/Designing Class/Alternate Class wrote:

Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While still technically an archetype, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class.

The ACG clearly and explicitly states that an Alternate class is an archetype of the base class; just one that makes more drastic changes than archetypes typically cover. And, just as you can combine multiple archetypes that don't modify the same class features, you can take Rogue archetypes that only change Rogue features not removed by the Ninja alternate class archetype. This is why they don't ever bother to list alternate favored class bonuses for alternate classes because the base class bonus still applies. The only time they need to list an archetype specifically for an alternate class is when it trades out abilities that only the...

Kazaan, I agree with you that an antipaladin is not an entirely new class; it's an alternate class, and should be able to use most of the stuff from the main class. The errata on ACG isn't out yet because they come out together (you'll see it in the PRD and your pdf after the errata make it there). I recommend following the link Chess Pwn provided and clicking for a FAQ so we can make it clear that alt classes can generally take stuff for their original class (the FAQ might need to have some language to explain that sometimes they can't, like antipaladin can't use paladin spells or hypothetical paladin options that revolved around purity).

Reopening an old can of worms, but has there ever been any definitive say on this?

Reopening an old can of worms, but has there ever been any definitive say on this?

Nope, and my FAQ thread is still probably the best place to FAQ for this question.

I'm confused where this needs a FAQ?

The key thing to remember is you can only take an Archetype if it replaces an ability of the same name as one in the alternate / unchained class you are using.

The Unchained Rogue can take Rogue Archetypes. Danger Sense specifically states it counts as Trap Sense for archetypes. This opens the door to a lot of Rogue Archetypes.

The ninja can take Rogue Archetypes. However not many apply because the "replacement" abilities have different names. For instance poison use doesn't say it counts as trapfinding when qualifying for archetypes. So that closes the door to many archetypes.

The Samurai can take Cavalier Archetypes. However it has the same detriments as the ninja so I don't think it qualifies for any.

The Anti-Paladin can technically take Paladin Archetypes. However none of the names match or have special text like the Unchained Rogue so it doesn't qualify for any. This was most likely due to word count so, though it's not RAW, I'd hope any reasonable GM would allow you to count the Anti-Paladin abilities for the Paladin counterparts when qualifying for archetypes.

I'm confused where this needs a FAQ?

The key thing to remember is you can only take an Archetype if it replaces an ability of the same name as one in the alternate / unchained class you are using.

The Unchained Rogue can take Rogue Archetypes. Danger Sense specifically states it counts as Trap Sense for archetypes. This opens the door to a lot of Rogue Archetypes.

The ninja can take Rogue Archetypes. However not many apply because the "replacement" abilities have different names. For instance poison use doesn't say it counts as trapfinding when qualifying for archetypes. So that closes the door to many archetypes.

The Samurai can take Cavalier Archetypes. However it has the same detriments as the ninja so I don't think it qualifies for any.

The Anti-Paladin can technically take Paladin Archetypes. However none of the names match or have special text like the Unchained Rogue so it doesn't qualify for any. This was most likely due to word count so, though it's not RAW, I'd hope any reasonable GM would allow you to count the Anti-Paladin abilities for the Paladin counterparts when qualifying for archetypes.

Ninja's can't take rogue archetypes, Archetypes are only for the class they are for, you cant take a rogue archetype that only trades out uncanny dodge on a barb that had uncanny dodge.

You say that anti-paladin can technically take paladin archetypes, provide the rules please. Even Mark, a DEV has the comment that it's unclear now and there's no rules allowing it. There's nothing at all in the written rules that even hints at alternate classes being able to take archetypes or FCB of other classes.

So.... no unchained ninjas in PFS yet? :p

So.... no unchained ninjas in PFS yet? :p

Probably never.

@ChessPwn I believe that the language “almost a new class” and “still technically an archetype” are strong enough language to suggest a Ninja can take Rogue archetypes that trade out uncanny dodge+improved since that ability isn’t traded out or changed by the Ninja stuff.

Or that’s the argument at least.

So.... no unchained ninjas in PFS yet? :p

PFS specifically can't have Unchained Ninjas. That was a Campaign ruling right after Pathfinder Unchained was released.

The "Ninjas can't take Rogue archetypes" destroyed an 8th level Ninja/Scout of mine, which I'm still somewhat bitter about.

Alternate classes operate exactly like the base class meaning they qualify for archetypes. Unchained is not an archetype.

Slim Jim wrote:

So.... no unchained ninjas in PFS yet? :p

Probably never.

@ChessPwn I believe that the language “almost a new class” and “still technically an archetype” are strong enough language to suggest a Ninja can take Rogue archetypes that trade out uncanny dodge+improved since that ability isn’t traded out or changed by the Ninja stuff.

Or that’s the argument at least.

Where is the "still technically an archetype?" because that wording made it into the ACG about archetypes and then Mark commented that that shouldn't be there and it was removed in the errata.

Maybe they used to be archetypes, but the currently said official position is that ninja's are their own class with their own archetypes and not an archetype of any other class.

Alternate classes operate exactly like the base class meaning they qualify for archetypes. Unchained is not an archetype.

Can you provide support for this? Especially after reading my other thread where I go and explain everything about alternate classes and how nothing in the rules lets this work?

kaisc006 wrote:

Alternate classes operate exactly like the base class meaning they qualify for archetypes. Unchained is not an archetype.

Can you provide support for this? Especially after reading my other thread where I go and explain everything about alternate classes and how notthing in the rules lets this work?

Alternate Classes

It states that though a stand alone class, they operate exactly the same as the base class. The only exception is you cannot take levels in the base class.

d20pfsrd is a third party site, and is not offiliated with Paizo.

d20pfsrd is a third party site, and is not offiliated with Paizo.

Unless you can now I will look it up when i get home but the pfsrd is usually word for word. Generally a better source than the direct book in my opinion since they include faq and forum clarifications.

d20pfsrd is a third party site, and is not offiliated with Paizo.

Nefreet, that wording is taken directly from Ultimate Combat and as such it doesn't matter that he linked D20 as the source or not. And just for future reference, unless it contains copyrighted setting material d20pfsrd just copies the text from the book and can be trusted in that regard.

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.

Well since it seems people can be bothered to read in the other thread I'll repeat here.

You're getting terms mixed up

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.

Notice that the term for rogue in relation to ninja is "associated class" NOT base class. Base class is defined as such.

A “Base Class” is any class with a full 20 level progression that does not have prerequisites for entry (as a Prestige Class does).

So what it's saying is that alternate classes work "exactly like a base class" which means it's a full 20 level progress meant for players to take and play.

Oh, I wasn't arguing that it works that way. I was just pointing out to Nefreet that kaisc's quote was from an official source and not something just made up.

Alternate classes are really just expanded archtypes. The distinction is that for an alternate class, we represent all of the rules needed to run the class. It is similar to its base, but has a significant number of swaps. There are certainly some archtypes that could have received this treatment, but we chose to leave them as more abbreviated write ups.

The alternate class was an archetype to the point that other archetypes could just have easily been alternate classes. The only difference between an archetype and alternate class was presentation.

This was how they worked. This was the stated intent on the boards. This was the black and white clear as crystal point blank statement from the book that came out with alternate classes. This is not the community cheesing something, reading too much into it like a pile of soggy tea leaves, going haywire, failing at reading comprehension or not turning the persnicket meter to "asmodean" the one time that would have been a good idea.

If something is an exception to that paradigm there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "hey, we don't want to combine unchained and ninja. "

If the paradigm shifted at some point thats not on the community. That there are some things that the paradigm doesn't work for is arguable. That we should have been able to see that the paradigm (directly and repeatedly stated) was never accurate is "we have always been at war with east asia" NVTS nuts.

Its been sitting on the back burner for what...2 years now? If the perfect, forward compatible backwards compatible ecumenically viable solution hasn't been worked out just say ninjas are rogues but it doesn't work with unchained.

Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a
representation of all of the class features, even those
that it shares with its base class. While still technically
an archetype, characters who play this class have all
the tools they need to advance their character in one
convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai
are all examples of an alternate class.

Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a

representation of all of the class features, even those
that it shares with its base class. While still technically
an archetype, characters who play this class have all
the tools they need to advance their character in one
convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai
are all examples of an alternate class.

Where is this from? And I agree with your other post in regards to Alternate Classes essentially being large archetypes. I never thought there was any confusion on this in the community.

To me Unchained Classes, Alternate Classes, Base Classes, and Hybrid Classes are there own set of Classes each with rules governing how they work. It's pretty clear that Unchained and Alternate Classes replace their Base Class counterparts. In this way they have access to their base class archetypes. As NorseWolf stated this has been repeatedly mentioned by Paizo on the boards. It's consistent and makes a lot of sense.

It's also pretty clear that you can't combine an Unchained / Alternate Class together since both are replacing the Base Class.

I guess what isn't consistent is when PFS makes it illegal for Ninjas to take Rogue Archetypes. But I think that is more a problem of PFS making "bad house rules" which is attributed to bad concepts of balance rather than looking at the current rules. But that is a debate for another day.

Where is this from?

Advanced class guide

marked for erratta but still there

It's also pretty clear that you can't combine an Unchained / Alternate Class together since both are replacing the Base Class.

An alternate class is just a really big archetype. It is not replacing the base class. Thats the entire point of the quote swarm.

Unchained versions can take archetypes of the chained version

I guess what isn't consistent is when PFS makes it illegal for Ninjas to take Rogue Archetypes.

Nope. This is not a PFS rule. Unchained rogues cannot be ninjas. That's it. There is no overaching rule that ninjas can't take rogue archetypes, it merely creates a slightly gray area around the ubiquitous ninja scouts.

But I think that is more a problem of PFS making "bad house rules" which is attributed to bad concepts of balance rather than looking at the current rules. But that is a debate for another day.

Very few of PFS house rules do that. Normally it's about clarity and original intent that got lost somewhere.

kaisc006 wrote:

Quote:

I guess what isn't consistent is when PFS makes it illegal for Ninjas to take Rogue Archetypes.

Nope. This is not a PFS rule. Unchained rogues cannot be ninjas. That's it. There is no overaching rule that ninjas can't take rogue archetypes, it merely creates a slightly gray area around the ubiquitous ninja scouts.

Gotcha. Nefreet made a comment about losing his ninja / scout so I thought they had put out a definitive rule about ninja's not using rogue archetypes.

Gotcha. Nefreet made a comment about losing his ninja / scout so I thought they had put out a definitive rule about ninja's not using rogue archetypes.

It definitely made ninjascout a gray area. Which is something different pfs players avoid to different degrees.

An alternate class is just a really big archetype. It is not replacing the base class. Thats the entire point of the quote swarm.

Unchained versions can take archetypes of the chained version

I don't understand where anyone would think an Unchained Rogue could become a Ninja in the first place. The Ninja doesn't state anywhere what abilities it is replacing of the Rogue's with new abilities. So you don't have any rules to say what changes what with the Unchained Rogue. So I don't see any rules that allow someone to start thinking it was possible.

[

I don't understand where anyone would think an Unchained Rogue could become a Ninja in the first place. The Ninja doesn't state anywhere what abilities it is replacing of the Rogue's with new abilities.

1) I have quoted the rules calling ninja a really big archetype ad nauseum. You can combine a little archetype with a big archetype.

2)It doesn't need to. At all. There is absolutely no reason you need to know what swapped what where when you're combining archetypes. All you need to know is what you have left to trade.

I have

A dinobot
A construction bot
A transforming city
A robot tank

I know that I can trade a dinobot for a rainbow pony. If i still have dinobot it doesn't matter if the construction bot was traded for a druid pony, the magic pony, or the farmer pony and the robot tank was traded for the magic pony or the druid pony. I have a dinobot I can get the rainbow pony.

And Jason's comment is unofficial and Mark stated that his comment about unchained rogues was to be official.
So with the now new official stance that they aren't just considered big archetypes that throws all that we considered true out with it.

And Jason's comment is unofficial and Mark stated that his comment about unchained rogues was to be official.

So with the now new official stance that they aren't just considered big archetypes that throws all that we considered true out with it.

And I suppose the advanced class guide was unofficial too? Come off it.

There is no new official stance, at all, after the old one was allegedly tossed 2 and a half years ago. Has the part of the book that point blank says they're archetypes even been taken out yet? Do they know in what way a ninja is or is not a rogue?

You're going well past its on shaky ground now and seem to be trying to argue that it was never the case, a reversal of your previous position.