Is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember that rule from the playtest document. The ACG classes act as alternate base classes for both of their component classes, so you can't multiclass into either base class. Presumably, this would also prevent multiclassing into other alternates of the same base classes. Also, class.
While I agree with blahpers, since the ACG isn't released yet it might be a good idea to just add that in explicitly. I know that for awhile I was unaware that you could not cross-class Ninja and Rogue; probably better to just avoid the confusion and note that the Slayer's 'parent' classes are Rogue\Ninja.
[edit]
Also, this should probably go in the ACG playtest forum rather than the rules forum.
|
Yeah, I don't think you can, unless you can be a Slayer/Scout or a Slayer/Thug, because one of the Devs has mentioned the alternate classes in the Ultimate Combat as being a big archetype, and a lot of people play Ninjas with the Scout archetype because it helps with sneak attack. Sadly, this is probably the same a being a Warpriest/Brawler(Class, not archetype) or being a Slayer/Investigator. Not doable.
No. Ninja is an alternate class for a rogue. Slayer is a hybrid class including the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No
If you have levels in one of these new classes, you cannot take levels in either of its alternate classes, nor can you take levels in a class in this playtest that also has either of those alternate classes. For example, if you take levels in arcanist (alternate classes: sorcerer and wizard), you can’t also take levels in sorcerer or wizard, nor can you take levels in bloodrager (alternate classes: sorcerer and barbarian).
Likewise, if you have levels in a base class, you cannot take levels in any of the classes in this playtest that list that base class as an alternate class. For example, if you have levels in rogue, you can’t take levels in investigator (alternate classes: rogue and alchemist) or slayer (alternate classes: rogue and ranger).
Robert, the text you quoted would seem to allow for it, since the slayer's component classes do not include ninja, and ninja is not one of the hybrid classes mentioned in the playtest.
Even if there is such a rule, Lifat (and I do remember there being one), it wouldn't apply to this situation anyways.
As written, I see nothing prohibiting this combo.
Slayer's component classes do not include ninja, and ninja is not a hybrid class from the playtest.
Even if there is such a rule, Lifat (and I do remember there being one), it wouldn't apply to this situation anyways.
As written, I see nothing prohibiting this combo.
Slayer's component classes do not include ninja, and ninja is not a hybrid class from the playtest.
So why exactly have you asked the question in two different topics if you're already so sure of the answer?
Yes, Ninja is not mentioned that it is one of the classes involved in slayer. However, Rogue is. Ninja is just an alternate class of Rogue, and Rogue isn't allowed. So no, Ninja/Slayer isn't allowed by the rules. It's not explicit, but it's there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Ninja is an alternate rogue class, so again no.
|
Robert, the text you quoted would seem to allow for it, since the slayer's component classes do not include ninja, and ninja is not one of the hybrid classes mentioned in the playtest.
What everyone else has said. Ninjas are Rogues, Slayer's cannot take levels in Rogue, so Slayers cannot take levels of Ninja.
If a class is ruled out for multiclassing it would be safe to assume that it's alternate class is also off limits.
Can you please give the developers time to finish the product before rule lawering over semantics?
Why or why not?
No, same reason that you can't multiclass ninja with rogue.
Okay, why do people keep saying that ninja is an alternate class of rogue? That is not how it was presented in the book. Is there some ruling that I've missed?Even if there is such a rule, Lifat (and I do remember there being one), it wouldn't apply to this situation anyways.
As written, I see nothing prohibiting this combo.
Slayer's component classes do not include ninja, and ninja is not a hybrid class from the playtest.
So why exactly have you asked the question in two different topics if you're already so sure of the answer?
Yes, Ninja is not mentioned that it is one of the classes involved in slayer. However, Rogue is. Ninja is just an alternate class of Rogue, and Rogue isn't allowed. So no, Ninja/Slayer isn't allowed by the rules. It's not explicit, but it's there.
Actually, that was how it was presented in the book. It's just in a part that's oft overlooked, the class Role section.
Role: The ninja spends almost all of her time honing her skills, practicing her art, or working on her next assignment. Even when not specifically working, the ninja is ever vigilant and ready for the situation to turn deadly. Her line of work earns her many enemies, but it is a list that she frequently reduces through assassination and misdirection. The ninja is an alternate class for the rogue core class.
EDIT:And the samurai is an alternate class of the cavalier as well.
Sorry about the dual threads. I originally posted it in the rules forums, thought better of it, then posted in the class forums.
I guess they moved the former into the class forums as well. Hopefully they will merge the two.
Why or why not?No, same reason that you can't multiclass ninja with rogue.
Except I'm not trying to multiclass ninja with rogue.
These are standalone classes whose basic ideas . . . *etc*
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. The antipaladin from Advanced Player's Guide is also an anternate class.
Except I'm not trying to multiclass ninja with rogue.Why or why not?No, same reason that you can't multiclass ninja with rogue.
I think i can see what you hope to achive and knowing your history i am tamptet to say yes.( because i am sure it will be fantastic)
But i think, as everybody else that have written here, that it is a no.But keep it alive i the no multiclass rule may go away.Wwhen the classes are more done.
And to as why not. It is my impression that the ninja count as a rogue when it comes to multiclassing because an alternate class simply is an expanded archtype.
Personally, I think both the ninja/rogue, samurai/cavalier, and hybrid/parent multiclass restrictions are unnecessary. My games don't have multiclass restrictions for the first two, and they won't have such restrictions for the hybrid classes either.
That said, under the rules as written, I don't believe you could multiclass a ninja/slayer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except I'm not trying to multiclass ninja with rogue.Why or why not?No, same reason that you can't multiclass ninja with rogue.
They're not saying you are. They're saying ninja = rogue for the purpose of multiclassing.
Seriously mate. I've read some of your posts before. You're smarter than this
A = B is not allowed.
A = C is not allowed.
Is B = C allowed? Logically, most likely not.
You cannot cross-class Ninja and Rogue because they are variations on the same class. They're almost predecessors to the hybrids presented in the ACG (Ninja is like a Rogue\Monk\Alchemist mixture).
Thus, since Rogue\Ninja is not allowed and Slayer\Rogue is not allowed, it follows that Slayer\Ninja would not be allowed.
|
|
But there is no rule that specifically states that a Ninja counts as a Rogue.
'
This is a very bold statement, and one contradicted by the core material that notes that ninja is an alternate class of a rogue, i.e. a rogue who's different enough from the baseline to justify a full write up instead of an archetype, but still a rogue.
Also you're trying to pull RAW on a document that lists sneak attack at 3rd & 4th level, and refers to rangers favoured enemy in some parts.
Looking at how they've rogue and ninja, it's pretty easy to see what the RAI is.
Nevertheless, confirmation would be nice.
Since RAW (RAPT?) has been covered at this point:
The hybrid classes appear to be intended to work as alternate classes for two base classes, not just a blend of the two. I haven't worked out why that is yet; possibly to prevent someone from doing something screwy like playing two hybrids and a base class and getting three weak copies of the same ability, especially if that ability is typically tied to a single provider such as a patron, mystery, or bloodline. As if crossblooded sorcerers with Eldritch Heritage weren't crazy enough, now we'd be able to throw in bloodrager for another bloodline.
But you can already do some very silly things, like taking one level of every base class, so I don't see the need to impose this restriction.
Ravingdork, what sort of build did you have in mind? Since this thing's in playtest, it could be useful data for the design team to see what players want to make when they see the new content. Does the build simply play more roguishly than a slayer, or is it an exploit (hey, I ain't gonna judge) to get a level up on some shared ability?
@OP: nope. ninja counts as rogue (and samurai as cavalier) and yiu cant multiclass between them (exact line was noted earlier in the thread), and the playtest doc already says you cant multiclass hybrids and their base parts (again, someone cited the exact line earlier in the thread). slayer is part rogue, and ninja is a rogue, so you cant multiclass them.
not sure how people are still confused about at this point.
I see why everyone believes the way they do, but I still don't see any specific rule prohibiting it.
Only assumptions.
I see why everyone believes the way they do, but I still don't see any specific rule prohibiting it.
Only assumptions.
er, how isnt there a rule prohibiting it? both sides of said prohibition are pointed out.
and alternate class cannot multiclass into its base (ninja/rogue) just like an alternate class cannot multiclass into its base (slayer/rogue).
ninja = rogue and slayer = rogue, at what point does either part stop being a rogue?
I see why everyone believes the way they do, but I still don't see any specific rule prohibiting it.
Only assumptions.
considering the part excluding it has already been quoted, considering the rules don't accommodate stating the obvious (if you believe it is not obvious, have you seen this thread? everyone seems to agree there is no doubt) and the simple fallacy that an absence of explicitly does not mean it is exactly that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork doesn't ask questions looking for an answer. He asks questions as a challenge to see if the forums can prove his already figured answer wrong, with page numbers and RAW wording, with no wriggle-room applied for common sense or rules by association. (A=B does not mean B=A unless a page somewhere says it does with all the proper air-tight grammar.)
I think he keeps a kill-count by exploded head somewhere near his computer.
If Rogue = Ninja and Rogue is not allowed, 99% of people also realize that Ninja is not allowed. This however, is likely just an assumption to you so ignore it and do whatever you want.
considering the part excluding it has already been quoted, considering the rules don't accommodate stating the obvious (if you believe it is not obvious, have you seen this thread? everyone seems to agree there is no doubt) and the simple fallacy that an absence of explicitly does not mean it is exactly that.I see why everyone believes the way they do, but I still don't see any specific rule prohibiting it.
Only assumptions.
I think this one have been won for 4 days.
No need to find voldes arguments and re open them.
|
Ninja is an alternate class for Rogue. Per UC : "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."
I see your point RD. The way it is written (ie "a base class" rather than "the base class"), we could interpret it as Ninja cannot multiclass with Rogue but could with Rogue hybrids such as Slayer.
Note however that AFAIK the above UC sentence has always been interpreted as meaning that Ninja operates exactly as Rogue except for taking a level in Rogue. Examples of this appear in requirements for feats, PrC. There are no special rules for Ninja because it is assumed that Ninja = Rogue.
If you follow this reasoning, then the Ninja = Rogue thing also applies here. Then you cannot multiclass Ninja with Slayer.
Nothing you said is the least bit true about me, Radsworth.
Thank you Black Raven.
Ninja is an alternate class for Rogue. Per UC : "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."
I see your point RD. The way it is written (ie "a base class" rather than "the base class"), we could interpret it as Ninja cannot multiclass with Rogue but could with Rogue hybrids such as Slayer.
Note however that AFAIK the above UC sentence has always been interpreted as meaning that Ninja operates exactly as Rogue except for taking a level in Rogue. Examples of this appear in requirements for feats, PrC. There are no special rules for Ninja because it is assumed that Ninja = Rogue.
If you follow this reasoning, then the Ninja = Rogue thing also applies here. Then you cannot multiclass Ninja with Slayer.
and that argument would hold, If you insist on maintaining your own ignorance by ignoring everything that's been said in this thread. Its not merely assumption. insisting that there is doubt about it is, if nothing else, petty
and that argument would hold, If you insist on maintaining your own ignorance by ignoring everything that's been said in this thread. Its not merely assumption. insisting that there is doubt about it is, if nothing else, pettyNinja is an alternate class for Rogue. Per UC : "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."
I see your point RD. The way it is written (ie "a base class" rather than "the base class"), we could interpret it as Ninja cannot multiclass with Rogue but could with Rogue hybrids such as Slayer.
Note however that AFAIK the above UC sentence has always been interpreted as meaning that Ninja operates exactly as Rogue except for taking a level in Rogue. Examples of this appear in requirements for feats, PrC. There are no special rules for Ninja because it is assumed that Ninja = Rogue.
If you follow this reasoning, then the Ninja = Rogue thing also applies here. Then you cannot multiclass Ninja with Slayer.
Lol did you read what you quoted?
Edit: And dont bust a vessel mate you dragged a 4 days dead tread out in the ligth to scream at the OP. Pehaps we just let it die now ok?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, problems like this are exactly why rules ought be written in the notation of first-order logic. Full expressiveness without ambiguity![/sarcasm]
It's a playtest document. There's gonna be some bugs. It's almost certainly not RAI. If your goal is pointing out a bug in RAW, there are better ways of doing it than trollish rhetorical questions.
Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. 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.
then again this is just from the d20pfsrd page on alternate classes. i dont have the book on-hand to find and quote the page/line/etc.
|
|
ravingdork, this concept really shouldn't be so hard to see.
You cannot multiclass into a class in which an advanced class belongs to:
for example, Ninja cannot multiclass into rogue via
"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."
So with that information, a ninja can never become a rogue, or another alternate class that belongs to the same father class.
for further information
"If you have levels in one of these new classes, you
cannot take levels in either of its alternate classes, nor
can you take levels in a class in this playtest that also has
either of those alternate classes. For example, if you take
levels in arcanist (alternate classes: sorcerer and wizard),
you can’t also take levels in sorcerer or wizard, nor can
you take levels in bloodrager (alternate classes: sorcerer
and barbarian)."
That part is important, because it tells you that you also cannot take levels in another alternate class that has the same base Bloodrager/arcanist = no because both sorcerer father classes.
So taking the ninja and the slayer would also be a no-go.
EDIT: Don't even dare try and cheese the line "from this playtest" because that is rediculous trolling and not appropriate for this forum.
Bending the rules and saying, "well it never said you cant do it from OTHER playtests" is rediculous.
But it DOES say "from this playtest."
I don't see how you can just ignore that. It is clearly only referring to the classes within the playtest, the classes from the core rulebook, and no others.