|
68 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
9 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Okay, so I know this has been debated over and over, and there's no clear answer. I really would like to hear from a dev for a final say on this one, because the only concrete answer that's been given is for PFS play, and that just doesn't affect the game in general.
So, here's the question:
Can a half-elf take an elf-specific racial archetype, such as Spelldancer?
Arguments for:
The half-elf has the [elf] subtype. Under the humanoid type listing:
Humanoid type wrote:
...Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, dark folk, or goblinoid...
Under the race creation rules in the Advanced Race Guide:
Humanoid wrote:
...For example, a half-elf has both the human and the elf subtypes. Subtypes are often important to qualify for other racial abilities and feats. If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites...
These things lead me to conclude that since half-elves have both human and elf subtypes, they count as both humans and elves in the case of race prerequisites, which is exactly what a racial archetype has, a race prerequisite.
Arguments against:
"This gives half-elves and half-orcs too many options." <-- I personally disagree, as the options are for different classes, for the most part. In addition, humans are supposed to be extremely versatile creatures, and these races inherit this versatility from their human side.
"An archetype isn't an effect" <-- I know that blackbloodtroll is going to put this as a reply, by the way. I agree that an archetype isn't an effect, and the reason this is relvant is this line from the half-elves racial abilities:
Elf blood wrote:
Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.
Personally, I think that this has been clarified by the rules in the ARG race creation guidelines to include feats and archetypes. This is one of the biggest things I want to hear a dev comment on.
So, what I'd like here is for people to hit the FAQ button. Feel free to comment on your own opinion on the matter, and debate back and forth all you want, but please definitely hit the FAQ button.
Racial Heritage allows racial archetypes to be taken. Elf Blood and Orc Blood use exactly the same wording as Racial Heritage. It would be stupid to allow one but not the other.
Racial Heritage uses similar language, but the important difference is that it goes on to state that they count as said race for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
This additional wording is important.
Other important FAQ here, and here.
For a finalized, and definitive answer to this debate, I too will hit the FAQ button next to the original post.
I urge all those reading to do the same.
If you look at the breakdown of the core races in the ARG to show how they are "built" using the guidelines and racial traits shown in the ARG, you'll see that neither Elf Blood nor Orc Blood are present nor are they even options in the ARG. These are relics and archaic terms to qualify how half-breed humanoid types function in the game before the explicit breakdown provided by the ARG. All multi-breed humanoids are denoted by racial subtype only.
Furthermore, say I used the ARG to create a new race of humans. They're not the core race named Human but their type is humanoid(human). They are qualified to take racial feats, archetypes, favored class bonuses, traits, and anything else that has "human" as a prereq, even though they are not the core race named "Human".
Lastly, both Feats and Traits are explicitly given as examples of "effects" under the Racial Heritage feat. This means, incontrovertibly, that "effects" is not limited to spell or item "effects". An argument could be made that they could have used a more accurate term such as "prerequisite" but that's just being pedantic. And if both feats and traits count as "effects", there is no grounds based on word-play to say that racial archetypes or alternate favored class bonuses or anything else with race as a prereq are not considered "effects".
Honestly, I would allow it in my group, because it really seems silly that a Half-orc raised by Orcs is simply incapable of caving horrific scars into his own body and using the same magic his tribe did, for example.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Kazaan wrote: If you look at the breakdown of the core races in the ARG to show how they are "built" using the guidelines and racial traits shown in the ARG, you'll see that neither Elf Blood nor Orc Blood are present nor are they even options in the ARG. These are relics and archaic terms to qualify how half-breed humanoid types function in the game before the explicit breakdown provided by the ARG. All multi-breed humanoids are denoted by racial subtype only.
Furthermore, say I used the ARG to create a new race of humans. They're not the core race named Human but their type is humanoid(human). They are qualified to take racial feats, archetypes, favored class bonuses, traits, and anything else that has "human" as a prereq, even though they are not the core race named "Human".
Lastly, both Feats and Traits are explicitly given as examples of "effects" under the Racial Heritage feat. This means, incontrovertibly, that "effects" is not limited to spell or item "effects". An argument could be made that they could have used a more accurate term such as "prerequisite" but that's just being pedantic. And if both feats and traits count as "effects", there is no grounds based on word-play to say that racial archetypes or alternate favored class bonuses or anything else with race as a prereq are not considered "effects".
I completely agree with you, Kazaan.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
FAQ'd. It'd be nice to know if I've been doing it wrong or not in my home games, even though this issue hasn't come up in any of our campaigns yet.
Seranov wrote: Honestly, I would allow it in my group, because it really seems silly that a Half-orc raised by Orcs is simply incapable of caving horrific scars into his own body and using the same magic his tribe did, for example. I allow it as well, for your very reasoning. That and its even more silly considering a Human with a bit of orc blood in him from some ancestor (racial heritage) is capable of doing it.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Racial Heritage uses similar language, but the important difference is that it goes on to state that they count as said race for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
This additional wording is important.
No it isn't because it's merely a list of examples. It doesn't say, "...counts as both human and <race> for effects related to race for the purpose of taking feats, traits, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." It says "...counts as both human and <race> for effects related to race." Period. Then it goes on to give examples of what "effects related to race" are. It's also a non-exhaustive list, as denoted by the "and so on" clause.
JB, in the case of his faqs, is inconsistent because he has taken the same, precise wording from two different abilities (one of which, mind you, doesn't even exist as far as the ARG goes) and given completely opposite interpretations. His faq answers are contradictory... they cannot both be correct. Based on his answer regarding alternate favored class bonuses, if I created a new race of type Humanoid(human) using the ARG, they would not qualify for human favored bonuses because they aren't the specific core race named Human.
Bump. I really want this answered.
Kazaan wrote: blackbloodtroll wrote: Racial Heritage uses similar language, but the important difference is that it goes on to state that they count as said race for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
This additional wording is important.
No it isn't because it's merely a list of examples. It doesn't say, "...counts as both human and <race> for effects related to race for the purpose of taking feats, traits, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." It says "...counts as both human and <race> for effects related to race." Period. Then it goes on to give examples of what "effects related to race" are. It's also a non-exhaustive list, as denoted by the "and so on" clause.
JB, in the case of his faqs, is inconsistent because he has taken the same, precise wording from two different abilities (one of which, mind you, doesn't even exist as far as the ARG goes) and given completely opposite interpretations. His faq answers are contradictory... they cannot both be correct. Based on his answer regarding alternate favored class bonuses, if I created a new race of type Humanoid(human) using the ARG, they would not qualify for human favored bonuses because they aren't the specific core race named Human. Exactly. There are a few people on the forums here that really need to go look up what the word "example" means. Example does not change the meaning of something or how something is implied. It clarifies the meaning of something.
Well, I FAQ'd it.
Everyone else should to.
Shooting Star wrote: Was this ever answered? Nope, no official word yet AFAIK.
Looks like we finally have an answer.
@cartmanbeck, I look forward to seeing your updated guide to the races in the future. Even though we argued about it, it's still a great guide for the newcomers of the pathfinder game.
Martiln wrote: Looks like we finally have an answer.
@cartmanbeck, I look forward to seeing your updated guide to the races in the future. Even though we argued about it, it's still a great guide for the newcomers of the pathfinder game.
Except for that FAQ entry being entirely inadequate and flat out contradictory with both the previous FAQ entry on Racial Heritage and RAW from the ARG; as I point out here. Since it was the last onto the pile and blatantly contradictory with the rules, I think we can all feel free to disregard it until they can come up with something more coherent with the system.
Kazaan wrote: Martiln wrote: Looks like we finally have an answer.
@cartmanbeck, I look forward to seeing your updated guide to the races in the future. Even though we argued about it, it's still a great guide for the newcomers of the pathfinder game.
Except for that FAQ entry being entirely inadequate and flat out contradictory with both the previous FAQ entry on Racial Heritage and RAW from the ARG; as I point out here. Since it was the last onto the pile and blatantly contradictory with the rules, I think we can all feel free to disregard it until they can come up with something more coherent with the system. That only applies in certain cases. The FAQ is saying it does not count for the racial archetypes. They just need to errata the rules to say "except for.....". Then the rules and the FAQ will be consistent.
Considering the fact that the rules team sits down and has these discussions as a group it I would say disregarding the FAQ is the worse option since it exist to show "intent".
If the intent is contradictory, it clarifies nothing; it makes things more controversial instead. It's obvious that they didn't look over all the information available when they came to this conclusion. In most forms of logic, if you reach a conclusion from invalid premises, the conclusion is logically invalid, even if it ends up being correct. As I illustrated, Racial Heritage was FAQed by JB who said that Racial Archetypes do count as "effects related to race". You can't have it one way in one reference and another way in another reference. Until such an errata occurs, the FAQ response remains invalid and cannot be followed while still maintaining relative integrity of the game rules. Hence, into the trash bin it goes.
As I noted before, the Racial Heritage adds more.
I was right, the end is official, and if you don't like it, houserule it.
I does not add more. It gives EXAMPLES. The word example does not mean "adds more"
If this is how they want it fin but they need to change the text of the feat to you know be in line with the english language.
Well, the FAQ notes that it adds more.
Then how do you explain the following?
ARG wrote: Humanoid (0 RP)
Humanoid races have few or no supernatural or spell-like abilities, but most can speak and have well-developed societies. Humanoids are usually Small or Medium, unless they have the giant subtype, in which case they are Large. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu. If you are making a new humanoid race, you should either find an existing subtype to match or make a new one by using the name of the race as the subtype. If you are making a half-breed race, it should have the racial type of both parent races. For example, a half-elf has both the human and the elf subtypes. Subtypes are often important to qualify for other racial abilities and feats. If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites. A humanoid race has the following features.
It doesn't call out "effects related to race". It calls out "race prerequisites". How does Prerequisite: Elf not qualify as a race prerequisite? It's pretty clear that they released an incorrect FAQ entry; it doesn't jive with the rest of the established rules. And I'm getting real tired of the whole "If you don't like it, houserule it" line. That goes without saying and has no bearing on the nature and interpretation of the written rules. So, according to the FAQ, a Half-Elf can't take an Elf racial archetype because of Elf-Blood because it doesn't count as this vague "effect". However, since Half-Elves have the Elf subtype, and since, you know, Half-Elf isn't even a real ability according to the ARG, Half-Elves can take an Elf racial archetype on account of them having the Elf subtype. That's the only logical interpretation of the FAQ answer as it and the rest of the FAQs/rules are currently written.
Well, then the Developers are wrong.
You are right.
The FAQ is meaningless, and we are all waiting for Paizo to hire you.
While you are at it, you should let us all know if there are any other junk FAQs or Errata.
Kazaan wrote: Then how do you explain the following?
ARG wrote: Humanoid (0 RP)
Humanoid races have few or no supernatural or spell-like abilities, but most can speak and have well-developed societies. Humanoids are usually Small or Medium, unless they have the giant subtype, in which case they are Large. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu. If you are making a new humanoid race, you should either find an existing subtype to match or make a new one by using the name of the race as the subtype. If you are making a half-breed race, it should have the racial type of both parent races. For example, a half-elf has both the human and the elf subtypes. Subtypes are often important to qualify for other racial abilities and feats. If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites. A humanoid race has the following features.
It doesn't call out "effects related to race". It calls out "race prerequisites". How does Prerequisite: Elf not qualify as a race prerequisite?
If it were that simple, I would just have Humanoid [Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Orc] and qualify for ALL of the archetypes. If it allowed that, it would be an advantage.
Throwing a fit at people that want consistency in the rules is not helpful to anyone. More so they have made mistakes before.
Also expecting people that pay for a product to go scour the internet to find FAQs that change RAW (because yes how it written in the books the half races should be able to do anything that feat can do.) is well getting tiresome. Once in awhile yes but its getting to be to often.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Well, then the Developers are wrong.
You are right.
The FAQ is meaningless, and we are all waiting for Paizo to hire you.
While you are at it, you should let us all know if there are any other junk FAQs or Errata.
While the facetiousness is obvious, you have, inadvertently, blundered into the crux of the issue; the developers are wrong. They are trying to design a system and they introduced a set of contradictory rules; rules that can't both be followed. It would be the equivalent of a programmer introducing contradictory lines of code and causing the program to crash. Yeah, it's his program... but it doesn't change the fact that the manner in which he coded it is wrong. Developers aren't divine beings who can do no wrong and it's the responsibility of those who notice errors to bring it to their attention because we are the ultimate debug system for a tabletop game like this. So don't look at contradictory rules and say, "Yeah, it doesn't make sense and it can't work... but they ARE developers so I shouldn't criticize them." If they can't handle constructive criticism of their work, they're in the wrong business.
A little rewording would be nice.
wraithstrike wrote: Considering the fact that the rules team sits down and has these discussions as a group it I would say disregarding the FAQ is the worse option since it exist to show "intent". Or, as in this case mor or less a change of intent.
Because what Kazaan quoted was in no way unclear and seemed very much to have the intend to allow what was written.
Don't get me wrong it is ok for game designers to change their opinion about something. But to say that this new rule has always been what was intended loses its credibility after the first incident.
I admit I overreact, but sometimes these Paizo-hate rants grate the nerves.
We know how they want the Half-Elf and Half-Orc abilities to function.
We know how they want the Racial Heritage feat to function.
So, a little clean up of wording here and there is what the rest of the rage is about.
That is what is about, right?
Well for me yes mostly. As frankly I don't care that much about these things. But there are some that do find that a feat makes a human more of an orc then a half-orc is well absurd. I wouldn't disagree with that opinion really. But absurd is not rare in system so I would just shrug it off.
But yes consistency in text is what I want. A term or phrase in one place should not be different then the exact same term or phrase in another.
Well, at this point, we know how it functions.
That is the important part.
Likely, we won't see the other parts of your desires filled for quite some time.
Archetypes are not effects, nor are they feats, they don't fall under that category, nor does being "adopted" qualify you for them.
LazarX wrote: Archetypes are not effects, nor are they feats, they don't fall under that category, nor does being "adopted" qualify you for them. This line from the race guide still clinches it for me, and in all my games I'll be allowing half-races to use racial archetypes because of it:
"If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites."
LazarX wrote: Archetypes are not effects, nor are they feats, they don't fall under that category, nor does being "adopted" qualify you for them. Oh for the love of... must we really dive back into this old argument?
Official Paizo FAQ wrote: Racial Heritage: Can a human with this feat take levels in an archetype that requires you to be of a specific race?
Yes, the Racial Heritage feat allows you to qualify for archetypes that have the chosen race as a requirement, assuming you still meet all of the other requirements to take levels in the archetype.
—Jason Bulmahn, 07/27/12
"Yes, the Racial Heritage feat allows you to qualify for archetypes that have the chosen race as a requirement..."
PRD wrote: Racial Heritage
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
"For example... and so on..." Not an exhaustive list. So here, there was an ambiguous situation in which racial archetypes may or may not be included under the vague term "effects" and Jason Bulmhn clarifies that they are, indeed, counted as "effects".
Furthermore, given the previously quoted passage from the ARG, this is entirely a vestigial problem given how it quite explicitly states that if you have the appropriate racial subtype, you qualify for racial prerequisites. If you're a Humanoid(Elf), you satisfy Prerequisite: Elf. If you're Humanoid(Orc, Giant), you satisfy Prerequisites for both Orc and Giant. If you're Humanoid(Elf, Human), you satisfy Prerequisites for both Elf and Human. If you're Humanoid(Toodlyflobpies), you would satisfy hypothetical Prerequisites for Toodlyflobpies. "Effects" doesn't enter into the equation anymore.
Is their intent for Racial Heritage to give access to racial archetypes, but having the appropriate subtype doesn't? It may or may not be. They may simply be acting on reflex without adequately thinking it out (Flurry of Blows, anyone?) But with the rules being flat out contradictory, intent has to take a back seat because the system crashes when you try to run it if you take the "Elf-Blood/Orc-Blood" FAQ into account. If they want to re-define, fine... do that and say that... issue an errata if need be. But they can't just set down a contradictory FAQ "clarification" that isn't fully thought out (and it isn't, given that it's contradictory with other rules) and call it good. That's bad form. Don't defend them for it; it's a simple rules error, nothing to be condemned or vindicated for. But it's still an error none the less that needs to be addressed and, ultimately, corrected. If you're viewing it though the shade of subjectivity... don't. If you think I am, you're wrong. This is purely an objective matter of system analysis; nothing more and nothing less. If you try to make it less, you're trivializing the issue. If you try to make it more, you're sensationalizing it. Stop it. It'd debugging... there's nothing trivial or sensational about that.
Are putting one FAQ down with another?
I think my favorite part of the entire Racial Heritage rules trainwreck is that a regular half-orc isn't allowed to take human-only archetypes, but a half-orc with Racial Heritage (Dwarf) is allowed to take human-only archetypes due to the symmetrical way Racial Heritage is written.
Because you're not sufficiently human until you discover that you have dwarf blood in you.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Roberta Yang wrote: I think my favorite part of the entire Racial Heritage rules trainwreck is that a regular half-orc isn't allowed to take human-only archetypes, but a half-orc with Racial Heritage (Dwarf) is allowed to take human-only archetypes due to the symmetrical way Racial Heritage is written.
Because you're not sufficiently human until you discover that you have dwarf blood in you.
BUT!!!! Can a half-orc even take Racial Heritage? it has a prerequisite of Human, is a half-orc human?
j b 200 wrote: BUT!!!! Can a half-orc even take Racial Heritage? it has a prerequisite of Human, is a half-orc human? Quote: Humanoid (0 RP)
...If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites...
Half-Orc:
Humanoid( Human, Orc). Yes, a Half-Orc has the appropriate subtype to qualify for a feat with Human as the prerequisite.
And of course, the Half-Orc could qualify for the Orc-only Archetype by taking Racial Heritage (Orc) and gaining the ability from some distant ancestor.
Not from his Orc mother, though.
If that's the way they really want it, it would make more sense to cut archetypes from Racial Heritage.
Umbranus wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Considering the fact that the rules team sits down and has these discussions as a group it I would say disregarding the FAQ is the worse option since it exist to show "intent". Or, as in this case mor or less a change of intent.
Because what Kazaan quoted was in no way unclear and seemed very much to have the intend to allow what was written.
Don't get me wrong it is ok for game designers to change their opinion about something. But to say that this new rule has always been what was intended loses its credibility after the first incident. Mistakes are made. Even the core rulebook was still has errors. This will not be the last time. The intent is clear. I do agree that an errata should be done also, so they match up, but Kazaan has no way to know that an errata is not in the works. He is just ASSUMING there isn't one.
It wouldn't matter even if they cut archetypes from Racial Heritage. That's not the problem, just the exemplar. The real issue is with Type(subtype) interaction. Racial Subtype is what qualifies you for race-based prerequisites. The reason for this is, since you can custom-build races using existing subtypes, they didn't want to lock your custom Elf or Orc-based race out of existing Elf or Orc material just for the fact that they aren't the core race of Elf or Orc.
For example; say I created a race of primitive, savage Elves, gave them the Humanoid(Elf) type, and called them something like Derju or Pandorans or whatever. They have different stat bonuses, different racial abilities, etc. but as Humanoid(Elf) they would still suffer from Elf Bane weapons, Preferred Target Humanoid (Elf), and so on and they'd also be able to take Elf feats, racial traits, and racial archetypes. They'd also be immune to a Ghoul's paralysis attack. But now, they're trying to say that a Half-Elf, who also has the Elf subtype (in addition to Human subtype), couldn't qualify for a racial archetype that has Elf as a prerequisite. They're basing their reasoning on the wording of the Elf-Blood "ability" referencing the vague "Effects". By the logic they're presenting, my Derju race of savage elves wouldn't qualify for Elf race traits, feats, archetypes, etc. because "they don't count as effects". Confounding it all is the fact that JB already stated that racial archetypes do count as "effects" in an official FAQ entry. Elf Blood gives no list of what does qualify as an "Effect", but Racial Heritage gives a non-exhaustive list that includes traits and feats and "so-on". Ultimately, the problem comes down to fluff over rules. Pathfinder is a System of rules. Different rules interact and if there's a problem with one rule, the ramifications can and will reverberate through other parts of the system. If they want to limit certain archetypes, feats, items, effects, etc. to the named Paizo-created race only, then that has to be documented explicitly somewhere. But when they just say "Prerequisite: Elf", then any race with the racial subtype "Elf" qualifies: Drow, Half-Elves, Derju, Elfan, Sylvari, Toodlyflobpies, whatever.
-------------------------------------------------------
wraithstrike wrote: Mistakes are made. Even the core rulebook was still has errors. This will not be the last time. The intent is clear. I do agree that an errata should be done also, so they match up, but Kazaan has no way to know that an errata is not in the works. He is just ASSUMING there isn't one. Yes, I'm assuming there isn't one. There isn't one now, none has been cited, and the FAQ references an issue (what does or doesn't qualify as an "effect") that is no longer an issue on account of the ARG. If I assume there is an errata on the way, then I might not point out the obvious lack of parity between the FAQ and RAW and, if it turns out they hadn't considered it and there is no errata in the works, then the problem slips through the cracks. I'd rather assume there is a problem and find out there isn't than to assume there isn't and find out there is. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Cogito Ergo Sum - I think, therefore I exist. This is self-evident. Everything else is a matter of assumption because I can't be sure of it. Assumption isn't a bad word; everyone bases their whole lives on nothing but assumptions.
Kaz we understand the issue. We agree the rules are not matching the FAQ. My point is that most of us go by intent, and they are pretty good about using errata to fix such mistakes. That is why I don't see it as that much of an issue. Now if they just said "We dont need to errata this. Use the FAQ", that would be different.
I would rather for us to get an FAQ now then wait 5 or 6 months for the errata release to come out.
I'm on the side of the FAQ not making sense. The Dev's may have a reason for the ruling they made. However they didn't explain it and so we now have an FAQ that contradicts the FAQ just above it and contradicts the newest printing (Advanced Race Guide) of what race subtypes do. It is a confusing mess. Just a little bit of RAI would help us all out.
As of this moment you can qualify for racial archetypes in one of two ways.
1) Be that race
2) Be human or a half-race and use your human side to pretend to be more of your other side or a third side.
So lets all roll up Orc adopted half-elf scarred witch doctors and have some fun.
Ok. I've read both Faq responses and the feat in question, and no doubt, the two answers are contridactory and don't work.
JB's answer does make it clear that archtypes are considered effects with regard to race, while the later faq draws the opposite conclusion.
Just a note, the person who posted the FAQ doesn't matter as they are all discussed by the members of the rules team. That's why they've started to just use Pathfinder Design Team for their FAQs.
To those of you referring to the race builder in terms of qualifying for archetypes and so on: Race building is something dramatically different from each home game to the next, whereas the racial archetypes are meant to thematically fit each of the specific races in general, not the humanoid humans you create in your own game, that's your GMs prerogative if he wants to allow those. Another point I want to bring up are these lines taken from the ARG that most of you seem to have glossed over when making your case:
"Typically, only members of the section’s
race can take the listed archetype, bloodline, or order,
though such options rarely interact with the racial traits
or alternate racial traits of that race. An archetype usually
features a thematic link to the race, granting it class
features that complement the abilities and the background
of the race."
Now I do see the contradiction in FAQs, but that quote from the ARG sums up most of the racial archetypes intended uses to begin with.
Alas, I digress, the main question in this thread has officially been answered, whether you agree with the official ruling is up to you. It's not my job to tell you how to run your games, but as far as my games go, I'll be siding with the Devs on this matter.
Martiln wrote: To those of you referring to the race builder in terms of qualifying for archetypes and so on: Race building is something dramatically different from each home game to the next, whereas the racial archetypes are meant to thematically fit each of the specific races in general, not the humanoid humans you create in your own game, that's your GMs prerogative if he wants to allow those. Another point I want to bring up are these lines taken from the ARG that most of you seem to have glossed over when making your case:
"Typically, only members of the section’s
race can take the listed archetype, bloodline, or order,
though such options rarely interact with the racial traits
or alternate racial traits of that race. An archetype usually
features a thematic link to the race, granting it class
features that complement the abilities and the background
of the race."
Now I do see the contradiction in FAQs, but that quote from the ARG sums up most of the racial archetypes intended uses to begin with.
Alas, I digress, the main question in this thread has officially been answered, whether you agree with the official ruling is up to you. It's not my job to tell you how to run your games, but as far as my games go, I'll be siding with the Devs on this matter.
Talk about glossing over...
" Typically, only members of the section’s
race can take the listed archetype, bloodline, or order,
though such options rarely interact with the racial traits
or alternate racial traits of that race. An archetype usually
features a thematic link to the race, granting it class
features that complement the abilities and the background
of the race."
I know of this passage and consider it a non-issue due to the presence of the word, "Typically". If that were not there, and it just started with "Only members of the section's race can take..." then I'd consider that RAW basis for limiting said archetypes, bloodline, etc. to the specific named race. However, the way it is actually written indicates that there is possibility for another race to qualify for the archetype (ie. hybrid, Racial Heritage).
The official answer given is in contradiction with both the rules and the previously issued FAQ (which, mind you, hasn't been retracted). That means that the officially given answer to the original question is invalid just as a programmer's code that crashes is invalid. It's useless because it can't be used in conjunction with other applicable rules. Furthermore, if the rationale is that the racial archetypes are supposed to represent certain genetic and cultural predispositions, I'd think that a Half-Orc is more qualified to take Scarred Witch Doctor than a Human with Racial Heritage (Orc). Half-Orcs actually do live in orc tribes and, occasionally, they achieve places of honor like chief's adviser or shaman. A Human who's great grancestor happened to be an Orc, on the other hand... I'd question how he came to learn such a closely tied cultural archetype. To put it exceedingly crassly, it'd be like a white guy who looks, talks, and acts "stereotypical white" but happens to be 1/32 black heading over to "da hood" and trying to pal around with "da brothas". Do you think a tribe of orcs, on being greeted by a human who claims to be a long-lost part of their tribe would take him the least bit seriously? The ruling fails on both mechanical and aesthetic levels. This isn't a matter of "siding" with anyone. There are no sides; it isn't a contest. It has been demonstrated logically (and, less important, fluff-wise) that the ruling is inadequate because it doesn't work. It's a defective product. The most important thing is to address that inadequacy. The Devs, presumably, want their game to run well and as free of such contradictions as possible. If they make an error such as this, they want to correct it. So you are not on the "side of the devs" because you would take a contradictory answer that effectively breaks the game system.
Here is my two cents. I am currently playing a half elf with drow magic and drow-blooded racial traits from ARG. There is a feat in ARG called half drow paragon it states:
Your drow blood is particularly strong.
Prerequisites: Drow-blooded and drow magic racial traits, half- elf.
Benefit: You count as a drow for any effects that relate to race. Furthermore, the spell-like abilities granted to you by your drow magic racial trait count as drow spell-like abilities for the purposes of any feat prerequisites.
The first sentence says that I qualify to be a drow for effects that relate to race. It also states that my racial spell like abilities from drow magic will meet feet prerequisites. (since they aren't "drow spell like abilities" which is the prerequisite for Drow nobility. The only feats in ARG (and anywhere else from what I have seen) that the spell like abilities are in the prerequisites, there is also a prerequisite that says DROW. This means that if I do not count as a drow for feat prerequisites (effects relating to race) then the half drow paragon feat in ARG is useless because I would ONLY meet the spell like ability prerequisite.
So, when something states whether it be half drow paragon, elf blood, or orc blood (effects relating to race), I believe that would also mean it qualifies for a racial feat prerequisite as well.
The fact that Half drow paragon also says FURTHERMORE instead of EXAMPLE (like racial heritage does) for me implies that EXAMPLE means EXAMPLE and doesn't ADD MORE to the feat.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
