There was a big discussion about this in another thread a while back, in one of the preview blog threads for the APG. Now, if I am remembering correctly, what the folks from Paizo clarified was that half-elves could take feats and traits and such that were human or elf-specific, and I believe it applied to archetypes and prestige classes as well. What they specifically said could not be done, and is now in the FAQ for the APG, is that a half-elf, or half-orc, could not take racial favored class options from their parent races.
But also, since this is not a PFS-specific issue, this thread would get a better answer in the main Rules forum, and someone from Paizo will probably move it tonight.
|
I put it here because Inner Sea Magic doesn't actually restrict access to the archetype to elves only, however as far as I can see (on the additional resources section) only elves may take it in PFS. Thank you very much for the response thou, and I hope I get an official one before our first PFS game down here in Lima Peru.
To his credit if they can or can't take it is a general questions, with the PFS being a being a subset.
Ah, I see what you are referring to now. So even if a half-elf could take that archetype, if the PFS list is specifically limiting it to just elves, then the PFS rule is what has to be followed.
Yes.Yes, hence the confusion. My only curiosity is if the racial trait
Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.
Would make them count as elves for the purpose of taking the Spire Defender archetype?
If so, then the Additional Resources for Inner Sea Magic needs to be adjusted from saying only elves can take that archetype.
Developer
|
If so, then the Additional Resources for Inner Sea Magic needs to be adjusted from saying only elves can take that archetype.
Well, since, save the explicit exception of favored class abilities, Half Elves count as both human and elves at all times, I don't see the "only elves" statement as keeping them out. It'd have to say half-elves cannot, or something stronger.
I suppose it could be edited for clarity, to remove any uncertainty, but the rules that exist already achieve the result Mark stated.