This has been brought up in numerous contexts, but I've yet to find an official answer, and I *really* think one is warranted (unless I've missed it).
Many class archetypes don't explicitly modify or replace an existing ability, but rather add to it in some additional way. For example, Infiltrator "chooses one type of creature he has chosen as a favored enemy" and gets a bonus from there. Ranger Guide "while in his favored terrain" gives his allies a bonus.
Some people say this makes choosing a second archetype that gives up this ability illegal, my take has always been that these don't modify, but actually just add an ability (in that the original ability isn't changed in any way), therefor you can take that archetype and just don't gain the benefit of the ability that adds to it.
Has this been answered anywhere? If not, can it be? Should the answer be consistent for all such cases, or at least clarify that these abilities do indeed modify the second ability if appropriate?
I do not know if their is FAQ on it, however, if you look at the PSRD charts for what archetypes are compatiable, they conclude that if something is added to a particular ability, the ability has been modified.
Now that I think about it, the word "modify" would include adding to something.
That said, I think everyone has at least thought about the question you are bringing up.
Are you talking about d20pfsrd? If so, that's not true. Both of the above abilities are not marked as modifying the associated ability. If you're talking about PRD, I'm not able to find the charts/what you're referring to there.
Most of the abilities actually state they "modify" or "replace" existing abilities, but there are also a fair amount that affect existing abilities, but replace something else or not mention anything.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
To modify is to change. To add to is to change. To add to is to modify.
Of course, if it's not listed as adding to a special ability, but rather is a straight bonus to the class. Then you get gray.
tivadar27 wrote: If you're talking about PRD, I'm not able to find the charts/what you're referring to there.
If you go to any class on PFSRD Barbarian for example, at the bottom they have a chart for all of the archetypes and put an X for a class feature that has been replaced and a C for a class feature that has been changed.
Driver_325yards wrote: tivadar27 wrote: If you're talking about PRD, I'm not able to find the charts/what you're referring to there.
If you go to any class on PFSRD Barbarian for example, at the bottom they have a chart for all of the archetypes and put an X for a class feature that has been replaced and a C for a class feature that has been changed. Ok, so you are talking PFSRD. In that case, your statement isn't consistent with their charts. As I said, the above two examples aren't listed as modifying the associated abilities. Incidentally, your link is bork.
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
tivadar27 wrote:
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
If the archetype lists a class feature that the plain class has, and then says how it works differently, I'm not sure how you don't arrive at the interpretation that it's modified.
mod·i·fy/ˈmɒdəˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled [mod-uh-fahy] Show IPA verb, mod·i·fied, mod·i·fy·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend: to modify a contract.
If you have added to an ability, you have modified it, and thus it is no longer eligible for combination with any other archetype that impacts the same ability.
Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote:
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
If the archetype lists a class feature that the plain class has, and then says how it works differently, I'm not sure how you don't arrive at the interpretation that it's modified. Easily, the ability works the exact same, it provides the same bonuses it did before. There's just another ability that adds something when the first ability is being used. None of these instances (that I know of) state that the original ability works any differently.
In fact, the Infiltrator ability doesn't affect the favored enemy ability at all, it just requires you to select a favored enemy you have.
tivadar27 wrote: Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote:
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
If the archetype lists a class feature that the plain class has, and then says how it works differently, I'm not sure how you don't arrive at the interpretation that it's modified. Easily, the ability works the exact same, it provides the same bonuses it did before. There's just another ability that adds something when the first ability is being used. This is incorrect in the relevant cases. Changing what a class feature can do is not adding an additional class feature.
tivadar27 wrote: This has been brought up in numerous contexts, but I've yet to find an official answer, and I *really* think one is warranted (unless I've missed it).
Many class archetypes don't explicitly modify or replace an existing ability, but rather add to it in some additional way. For example, Infiltrator "chooses one type of creature he has chosen as a favored enemy" and gets a bonus from there. Ranger Guide "while in his favored terrain" gives his allies a bonus.
Some people say this makes choosing a second archetype that gives up this ability illegal, my take has always been that these don't modify, but actually just add an ability (in that the original ability isn't changed in any way), therefor you can take that archetype and just don't gain the benefit of the ability that adds to it.
Has this been answered anywhere? If not, can it be? Should the answer be consistent for all such cases, or at least clarify that these abilities do indeed modify the second ability if appropriate?
Sorry for the broken link. With that said, PSFRD says that infiltrator and guide archetypes can be taken together.
Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote: Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote:
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
If the archetype lists a class feature that the plain class has, and then says how it works differently, I'm not sure how you don't arrive at the interpretation that it's modified. Easily, the ability works the exact same, it provides the same bonuses it did before. There's just another ability that adds something when the first ability is being used. This is incorrect in the relevant cases. Changing what a class feature can do is not adding an additional class feature. Once again, the infiltrator ability does not change what the class feature can do at all... And both of these *do* add additional class features (they have names and everything). So how do you figure this?
As I said, we can go back and forth on this all night. It's just two different interpretations of an English sentence. I acknowledge you could be right, but you have to admit, I could be right as well... I'm just looking for official clarification (as in, can the Devs tell us what *they* meant?)
Oh, I think I understand your question now
PSFRD wrote:
Quote: Terrain Bond (Ex)
At 4th level, the guide forms a bond with the land itself, enabling him to direct others in such terrain. When in his favored terrain, the Ranger grants all allies within line of sight and that can hear him a +2 bonus on initiative checks and Perception, Stealth, and Survival skill checks. Also, as long as they travel with him, the Ranger’s allies leave no trail and can’t be tracked. The Ranger can choose for the group to leave a trail, or even specific members of the group to leave a trail if he so desires.
This ability replaces hunter’s bond.
Terrain Bond does not replace favorite terrain and, while it provides an additional bonus while in your favorite terrain, it does not modify your favorite terrain ability.
tivadar27 wrote: Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote: Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote:
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
If the archetype lists a class feature that the plain class has, and then says how it works differently, I'm not sure how you don't arrive at the interpretation that it's modified. Easily, the ability works the exact same, it provides the same bonuses it did before. There's just another ability that adds something when the first ability is being used. This is incorrect in the relevant cases. Changing what a class feature can do is not adding an additional class feature. Once again, the infiltrator ability does not change what the class feature can do at all... And both of these *do* add additional class features (they have names and everything). So how do you figure this? Why the focus on infiltrator? It serves as a poor example for the question at hand. It replaces exactly one class ability and it explicitly says that it replaces favored terrain. It's not even arguable.
If you're actually trying to argue that two archetypes work together. Do so. If this is really about making infiltrator and guide work together, they fit easily, but not for any of the arguments you're making.
Infiltrator replaces favored terrain only.
Guide replaces favored enemy, hunter's bond, evasion, improved evasion, quarry, and improved quarry.
The is no overlapping modifications or replacements to worry about. All replacements are explicitly named.
Driver_325yards wrote: tivadar27 wrote: This has been brought up in numerous contexts, but I've yet to find an official answer, and I *really* think one is warranted (unless I've missed it).
Many class archetypes don't explicitly modify or replace an existing ability, but rather add to it in some additional way. For example, Infiltrator "chooses one type of creature he has chosen as a favored enemy" and gets a bonus from there. Ranger Guide "while in his favored terrain" gives his allies a bonus.
Some people say this makes choosing a second archetype that gives up this ability illegal, my take has always been that these don't modify, but actually just add an ability (in that the original ability isn't changed in any way), therefor you can take that archetype and just don't gain the benefit of the ability that adds to it.
Has this been answered anywhere? If not, can it be? Should the answer be consistent for all such cases, or at least clarify that these abilities do indeed modify the second ability if appropriate?
Sorry for the broken link. With that said, PSFRD says that infiltrator and guide archetypes can be taken together. No big deal, and I'd actually say I agree with you on this (though they're rather worthless, as guide doesn't get favored enemies but has an ability that uses favored terrains and infiltrator doesn't get favored terrains but has an ability that uses favored enemies). however, PFSRD is not a legal source of rules, and Ximen disagrees.
And yes, sorry just saw your latest post, you get the question now :)
tivadar27 wrote:
And yes, sorry just saw your latest post, you get the question now :)
It would have been easier if you had asked that in the beginning instead of making a general case about a different question.
Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote: Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote: Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote:
@Ximen: I guess I'm saying I disagree with you. I believe if Paizo wanted things to actually modify, they would say so. Granted, I think there are things they overlooked (Urban Barbarian Rage, for example). For example, a Guide who loses Favored Terrains as part of the Ranger class, can still get Favored Terrains elsewhere and have the ability apply.
I should say, I also believe "I disagree with you" is different from "you are wrong". All the rules, much like laws written in English, are open to interpretation. I just find this particular one rather annoying, because it's not the difference between being able to use something and not for an adventure, but rather whether your character is legal at all.
If the archetype lists a class feature that the plain class has, and then says how it works differently, I'm not sure how you don't arrive at the interpretation that it's modified. Easily, the ability works the exact same, it provides the same bonuses it did before. There's just another ability that adds something when the first ability is being used. This is incorrect in the relevant cases. Changing what a class feature can do is not adding an additional class feature. Once again, the infiltrator ability does not change what the class feature can do at all... And both of these *do* add additional class features (they have names and everything). So how do you figure this? Why the focus on infiltrator? It serves as a poor example for the question at hand. It replaces exactly one class ability and it explicitly says that it replaces favored terrain. It's not even arguable.
If you're actually trying to argue that two archetypes work together. Do so. If this is really about making infiltrator and guide work together, they fit easily, but not for any of the arguments you're making.
Infiltrator replaces favored terrain only.
Guide replaces... Sorry, let me put this simply, can I take Infiltrator and another archetype that replaces favored ENEMY (such as Guide). Please read the one ability Infiltrator has, hopefully you'll see why I'm asking this, as that ability refers to Favored Enemy.
Ximen Bao wrote: tivadar27 wrote:
And yes, sorry just saw your latest post, you get the question now :)
It would have been easier if you had asked that in the beginning instead of making a general case about a different question. I did, I asked about Infiltrator and another archetype that replaces favored enemy, as one example, and guide and another archetype that replaces favored terrain, as a second example... These two examples were meant to be independent, and I actually didn't realize they could be combined, sorry about that.
I think he is saying that because [Terrain Bond from the guide class gives you an ability that only works if you have a favorite terrain and arguably modifies favorite terrain because it grants you additional abilities in your favorite terrain] Guide and Infiltrator[which eliminates favorite terrain] do not work together.
I think he got the ruling he wanted anyway.
With that said, I think he had a legitimate question that I could see some GMs arguing one way or the other.
There's a precedent for the Infiltrator and the loss of favoured terrain, at least.
FAQ wrote: Ranger: How does a ranger with the infiltrator archetype (page 126), which causes him to lose his favored terrain class feature, use his camouflage and hide in plain sight class features?
A ranger with the Infiltrator archetype can use the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features whenever he is using his adaptation class feature, regardless of the terrain he is in.
Source
So it seems reasonable that if an Infiltrator takes a compatible archetype that gives him another ability to use "when in favoured terrain" he can use that ability whenever using an adaptation.
I personally would just ignore the "favoured enemy" restriction on the Adaptations ability since it doesn't actually increase the character's power to be able to choose any creature type for adaptations - they can't select a broader range of adaptation types because the Infiltrator normally has no more adaptations than it has favoured enemies.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
