only slightly stronger, if that, but not worth a whole point of LA),
Ugh agreed. My preferred solution is to use a couple of required levels in NPC classes. Leveling as a warrior is slightly worse than a fighter but with better stats it balances out.
"I think Paizo's SLAs-qualifying-for-PrCs ruling will do more to encourage those races than granting martial weapon proficiencies for free.. Of course, both of those together could be too much :)"
Agreed again but I think IMO that is a problem with prestige classes more than the Planetouched. That being said I am getting into house rules here so I better stop. Maybe I am mistaken or maybe you are the exception I am not sure. To me the fact that they get better stat bonuses than most races is enough to put them on par at least with humans so to me balance obviously falls on the other side but meh.(whoops this dont apply anymore! Sorry had 3.5 on my mind.)
|
I don't think a lot of people were aware that aasimar and tiefling got weapon proficiency for free. So people weren't trying to use it. The current ruling about SLAs is much better known.
Technically, the line in ARG doesn't actually prove that they don't get proficiency. That line is used for creating new races, and the suggestion is that all current races conform to its rules.
I do think it was probably always the intention that aasimar didn't get proficiencies for free. But if they got them in 3.5, and the outsider type says they get them, it's not weird to think that they do. Arguably, that was the RAW until ARG. Not RAI, but how could we know that?
"But it would be broken, so it can't be legal" isn't really a good argument for arguing against the letter of the rule. Because everyone has some pet example of something (considered) broken that IS legal.
It's clear that different people are coming to different answers. Indeed, I concluded it was "obvious" that aasimar and tieflings did have martial weapon proficiency and never even bothered to bring it up on the forums because the text was clear on the matter; outsiders have martial weapon proficiency unless explicitly stated otherwise, and aasimar/tieflings do not state otherwise. Others interpreted this very differently, focusing on the omission of the detail to infer an implicit override of the creature type traits. This lead to the "obvious" conclusion that aasimar and tieflings do not have martial weapon proficiency.
This is why a formal FAQ would be helpful. The general rule explicitly states something, while the specific rule implies (but does not state) otherwise. Depending on your preferred approach - reading of the RAW or inferring of the RAI - you will come to a completely different answer, and that answer will be very obvious to you.
I call Assumption of Perfection on that. Giving a full PC race write-up and not including proficiency is an explicit override, by the standards of writing that can reasonably be expected from Paizo.
So given an ambiguity, you presume that it supports your ruling that the RAI is in opposition to the literal RAW? I do not presume to know the RAI, nor that the rules are perfectly written. Aside from what Paizo responses may exist (of which FAQ and errata are the only ones that are both official and well organized) my only tool is the rules as they were published.
In this case, the RAW is clear and makes sense. The balance issues of aasimar and tieflings getting martial weapon proficiency is up for debate, but it's not going to break the game and it's not unprecedented to get weapon proficiency as a racial trait.
Your argument would be valid if "do humans need to breathe" and "are the grandchildren of angels instinctively proficient with swords" were in any way equivalent questions.
You are that guy who is arguing that the "Dead" condition is undefined, and nothing prohibits taking actions while dead.
They are completely equivalent! Both are creature type traits, literally listed side-by-side in exactly the same section. The humanoid creature type traits state that creatures with class levels use those proficiencies instead, but the outsider traits do not have this clause.
This is not comparable to the famous "dead condition", which (if enforced literally) would cause havoc throughout the rules of the entire system. Nothing breaks if you give aasimar martial weapon proficiency, with the worst outcome being early qualification to eldritch knight.
I'm just amused. This is, by definition, a frequently asked question.
Agreed; that's really what's at issue here. Ever since I was provided the link, I've accepted that "no weapon proficiency" is the official ruling, and to be honest I think it's a good ruling. It just needs to be formally and unambiguously stated in the rules, as it was in the ARG.
Aasimar and tiefling PCs do not automatically get martial weapon proficiency any more than they automatically get two good saves, 6 + Int skill points, or fast progression BAB. They get whatever is in their race and class write-ups. Otherwise, you'd have to own a Bestiary just to know how to play the race, which clearly isn't the intent if you purchased the Advanced Race Guide. (Not to mention that it'd be ridiculously overpowered.)
Edit: Removed d10 hit dice since that, at least, is specifically proscribed in the bestiary entry.
"But it would be broken, so it can't be legal" isn't really a good argument for arguing against the letter of the rule. Because everyone has some pet example of something (considered) broken that IS legal.
Agreed more or less. My rule is if there is ambiguity rule on the side of balance rather than nitpicking words. Just say it could go either way but this way is most balanced. My example of when I agree with you though would be the Horn of Valhalla.
This magic instrument comes in four varieties. Each appears to be a normal, scarred old horn used for hunting or signaling during battle. When someone speaks its command word and blows the horn, however, the horn summons a number of human barbarians to fight for the character who summoned them. Each horn can be blown just once every 7 days. Roll d% and refer to the table above to see what type of horn is found. The horn's type determines what barbarians are summoned and what prerequisite is needed to use the horn. Any character who uses a horn of Valhalla but doesn't have the prerequisite is attacked by the barbarians she herself summoned.
d% Type of Horn Barbarians Summoned Prerequisite
01–40 Silver 2d4+2, 2nd-level None
41–75 Brass 2d4+1, 3rd-level Spellcaster level 1st
76–90 Bronze 2d4, 4th-level Proficiency with all martial weapons or bardic performance ability
91–100 Iron 1d4+1, 5th-level Proficiency with all martial weapons or bardic performance ability
Summoned barbarians are constructs, not actual people (though they seem to be); they arrive with the starting equipment for barbarians. They attack anyone the possessor of the horn commands them to fight until they or their opponents are slain or until 1 hour has elapsed, whichever comes first.
The problem is that constructs don't gain Morale bonuses and thus these barbarians have a useless rage. It is a problem from the 3.5 transition when rage was untyped.
Do you think that by interpreting the rules in this way you encourage tieflings and such to the exclusion of other races?No, based on evidence from 3.5 I wouldn't think this encourages those races to the exclusion of others. We didn't use LA for the aasimar and tiefling, since they seemed about on par with the core races (only slightly stronger, if that, but not worth a whole point of LA), and despite that I think there were only 2 characters played with those races in the 5-6 campaigns I was a part of with that group (either as player or as DM).
I think Paizo's SLAs-qualifying-for-PrCs ruling will do more to encourage those races than granting martial weapon proficiencies for free.. Of course, both of those together could be too much :)
Have to agree on this point. Free Martial Weapon proficiency isn't that big of a deal, because just about any class that's actually going to be a primary weapon wielder either already has it, or at least has expanded weapon access options. A wizard doesn't really get a big power boost from having access to martial weapons; he's going to be casting spells anyway.
|
"But it would be broken, so it can't be legal" isn't really a good argument for arguing against the letter of the rule. Because everyone has some pet example of something (considered) broken that IS legal.Agreed more or less. My rule is if there is ambiguity rule on the side of balance rather than nitpicking words. Just say it could go either way but this way is most balanced. My example of when I agree with you though would be the Horn of Valhalla.
** spoiler omitted **
The problem is that constructs don't gain Morale bonuses and thus these barbarians have a useless rage. It is a problem from the 3.5 transition when rage was untyped.
Uh...that's 'construct' in the colloquial sense that they're made by the Horn not real people, not Construct the creature type. They're Human Barbarians mechanically, as is stated above the list of what you summon. "Human" and "Construct" as creature types cannot go together.
Uh...that's 'construct' in the colloquial sense that they're made by the Horn not real people, not Construct the creature type. They're Human Barbarians mechanically, as is stated above the list of what you summon. "Human" and "Construct" as creature types cannot go together."But it would be broken, so it can't be legal" isn't really a good argument for arguing against the letter of the rule. Because everyone has some pet example of something (considered) broken that IS legal.Agreed more or less. My rule is if there is ambiguity rule on the side of balance rather than nitpicking words. Just say it could go either way but this way is most balanced. My example of when I agree with you though would be the Horn of Valhalla.
** spoiler omitted **
The problem is that constructs don't gain Morale bonuses and thus these barbarians have a useless rage. It is a problem from the 3.5 transition when rage was untyped.
SilVer Horn BarBarian
Human barbarian 2
N Medium construct
init+6; SensesPerception +6
DefenSe
aC13, touch 10, flat-footed 11 (+3 armor, +2 Dex, –2 rage)
hp21 (2d12+8)
fort+6, ref+2, Will+3
Defensive abilitiesuncanny dodge; immuneconstruct traits
offenSe
Speed45 ft.
meleegreataxe +8 (1d12+7/×3)
Special attacksrage (7 rounds/day), rage powers (swift foot)
Base StatisticsWhen not raging, the barbarian’s statistics are:
Speed40 ft., aC15, touch 12, flat-footed 13; hp17; melee
greataxe +6 (1d12+4/×3); Str17, Con13; CmB+5, CmD15;
Climb +7, Swim +7
StatiStiCS
Str21, Dex14, Con17, int8, Wis12, Cha10
Base atk+2; CmB+7; CmD17
featsImproved Initiative, Weapon Focus (greataxe)
SkillsAcrobatics +6 (+10 jump), Climb +9, Perception +6, Swim +9
other gearstudded leather, greataxe
PS is there a smart way to copy and paste stat blocks?
A creature with a PC race write-up has the traits written in the write-up. That's basic Lex Specialis. Simple as that.So would you be okay with Color Spray being effective against a zombie? After all the zombie stat block doesn't say "immune to mind-affecting effects," it just has the undead type, which includes immunity to mind affecting effects "unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry".
It's exactly the same thing. The outsider type also says
Bestiary statblock =/= PC race write-up.
The horn or effects like it seems to be the only case where that 'construct' mechanic is used. I always assumed it was just an easy way to make them 'not real people' They use the same terminology in the one world wound city where barbarian hosts can pop into existance with the sound of fighting.
|
|
I think the Aasimar thing is particularly curious because they do keep some of the weirdness of being an outsider; they're not valid targets for Person spells for example.
Obviously they're not going to get d10 HD because they're not taking levels in Outsider. But the class skills and weapon proficiencies are a bit of a corner case. Some races grant class skills or weapon proficiencies; so why not a 0th-level type?
(I'm happy with the current interpretation of likely RAI. But it is NOT expressed well in the RAW; it's only implied in the race generation section that normal races conform to those rules. Strictly speaking it's not proof aasimar really work that way.)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Some races grant class skills or weapon proficiencies; so why not a 0th-level type?
Because skills and proficiencies come from hit dice, and if the race has no HD it grants none of that and it all comes from the class HD.
Race, Class and Level: Some monsters do not possess racial Hit Dice and are instead defined by their class levels.
Hit Dice determine a wide variety of other statistics, including the creature’s feats, skills, hit points, attack bonuses, and special ability DCs.
determine how many skill ranks your creature has based on its type and Hit Dice.
Aasimars are defined by class levels
All of this tries to explain that if you have no racial HD, all your abilities and stats are defined by your class levels. There is no reason to assume that skills and proficiencies are exempt from this direct language without a line saying so. The general stats page for Outsiders with racial HD isn't a good place to take as a source for something like weapon proficiencies when you have language like "instead defined by class levels" being used.
I think the Aasimar thing is particularly curious because they do keep some of the weirdness of being an outsider; they're not valid targets for Person spells for example.
Obviously they're not going to get d10 HD because they're not taking levels in Outsider. But the class skills and weapon proficiencies are a bit of a corner case. Some races grant class skills or weapon proficiencies; so why not a 0th-level type?
(I'm happy with the current interpretation of likely RAI. But it is NOT expressed well in the RAW; it's only implied in the race generation section that normal races conform to those rules. Strictly speaking it's not proof aasimar really work that way.)
It is expressed well enough.
Suppose you had the Advanced Race Guide but had never seen a Bestiary. How would you run an aasimar?
You'd run it according to its racial writeup. There would be no ambiguity at all; the aasimar would have all of the racial traits listed there. The fact that its type is outsider simply means that it is treated as such by any spell or effect that behaves differently with respect to outsiders.
|
|
Some races grant class skills or weapon proficiencies; so why not a 0th-level type?Because skills and proficiencies come from hit dice, and if the race has no HD it grants none of that and it all comes from the class HD.
Dwarves, gnomes, halflings and half-orcs start with some weapon proficiencies through their Weapon Familiarity racial feature; even before getting their first hit die. Is it really so strange to think that Aasimar would likewise start with some weapon proficiencies due to Type?
Elven weapon familiarity is listed in the race writeup. Aasimar do not have such a clause in their writeup. If aasimar were intended to have any weapon familiarity, it would have been listed in their writeup as well as in their ARG build detail.
|
|
I think the Aasimar thing is particularly curious because they do keep some of the weirdness of being an outsider; they're not valid targets for Person spells for example.
Obviously they're not going to get d10 HD because they're not taking levels in Outsider. But the class skills and weapon proficiencies are a bit of a corner case. Some races grant class skills or weapon proficiencies; so why not a 0th-level type?
(I'm happy with the current interpretation of likely RAI. But it is NOT expressed well in the RAW; it's only implied in the race generation section that normal races conform to those rules. Strictly speaking it's not proof aasimar really work that way.)
It is expressed well enough.
Suppose you had the Advanced Race Guide but had never seen a Bestiary. How would you run an aasimar?
You'd run it according to its racial writeup. There would be no ambiguity at all; the aasimar would have all of the racial traits listed there. The fact that its type is outsider simply means that it is treated as such by any spell or effect that behaves differently with respect to outsiders.
Now suppose you saw the Aasimar writeup in the Bestiary - ostensibly a complete playable race - and never looked at the ARG, because "that's all extra stuff". You'd arrive at an entirely different conclusion. "Advanced" in ARG suggests that it's dispensible, just like you don't need the APG archetypes to understand CRB classes.
Nevertheless, every race that grants weapon proficiencies to PCs explicitly lists those proficiencies in their race writeup. Aasimar list no such proficiencies. They receive none.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Now suppose you saw the Aasimar writeup in the Bestiary - ostensibly a complete playable race
I am assuming that, and in that assumption I'm assuming you are playing it as written with the "Aasamar as a Player" write up. That part does not note weapon proficiencies, but rather states it is "defined by class levels".
For that matter, on the PRD's bestiary entry, aasimar characters aren't even listed as having the native outsider type. If that was all one actually used, where would the weapon proficiencies come from?
Race writeup are complete. A character gets the abilities and characteristics in their race writeup. No more, no less.
I thought Aasamar and one level of magus would qualify for ek at level 2.
I thought Aasamar and one level of magus would qualify for ek at level 2.
Sure, if you want all the drawbacks of both classes and none of the benefits.
Well magus grants the weapon proficiencies and Aasamar provides the sla for ek at level 2.
I'm not saying its the best choice just fast.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For that matter, on the PRD's bestiary entry, aasimar characters aren't even listed as having the native outsider type. If that was all one actually used, where would the weapon proficiencies come from?
Race writeup are complete. A character gets the abilities and characteristics in their race writeup. No more, no less.
So no character needs to eat, sleep or breathe? After all, those traits aren't listed in their race write up.
To the original poster, I don't think the entry is the 'risky' part of the SLA as spells ruling. Aasimar summoners who can get feats like starlight summons due to their SLA, or a bit more damage with arcane striking are two examples.
So no character needs to eat, sleep or breathe? After all, those traits aren't listed in their race write upFor that matter, on the PRD's bestiary entry, aasimar characters aren't even listed as having the native outsider type. If that was all one actually used, where would the weapon proficiencies come from?
Race writeup are complete. A character gets the abilities and characteristics in their race writeup. No more, no less.
Cute.
Because Pathfinder is not 3.5, and one block of rules text does not exist in a vacuum. If the "yes-sayers" have an argument, "but 3.5" is not it.
Because Pathfinder is not 3.5, and one block of rules text does not exist in a vacuum. If the "yes-sayers" have an argument, "but 3.5" is not it.We're not talking about "a vacuum". Where is a change in wording that is relevant in any way to how you interpret the unchanged text? There's lots of cases where there's a real difference that clearly indicates an intentional change, but here, we have large amounts of apparently-relevant text, all of which is unchanged since 3.5.
If the words originally meant that, then they should still mean that, and if the designers want to change the rules, they should change them. By changing the words used to write them, rather than by keeping words which unambiguously and definitively mean something else.
Have to agree with the general sentiment here. It's not unreasonable to assume that rules text that is the exact same as it was in 3.5 works the way it did in 3.5. Granted, Paizo has gone against this idea before (like in the infamous "unwritten rules" FAQ), but in the absence of any other information it's a valid source.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Have to agree with the general sentiment here.
The general sentiment is off.
The assertion that it is the same text as 3.5 is flat wrong. In my 3.5 Monster Manual on page 313 it does say "Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry." but the race write up on page 209 doesn't have any mention of being defined by class levels like Pathfinder does.
To make matters worse, there is a whole class level lost in 3.5 due to Level Adjustment +1. So granting weapon proficiencies is reasonable in 3.5, but there is no lost level in Pathfinder.
If your class levels define you for skills, BAB, saves, and proficiencies then please tell me how you can legitimately assert that you can ignore that line?
It's possible to qualify for Eldritch Knight as early as the 2nd level with a Tiefling Diviner using the scryer subschool. The Tiefling race gives you proficiency with all martial weapons (outsider traits), and the scryer subschool gives you clairvoyance as a SLA.I searched d20 for a Thiefling Diviner and found nothing. I have never heard of a race trait/ability/feat that gives you all the martial weapons. Please elaborate.
Arcane Trickster: If somebody asked me if I wanted to be at level 9, I would say level 1 wizard, level 1 Rogue, level 1 Sleepless Detective, level 6 Arcane Trickster.
I don't understand how you could manage this. In order to take trickster you need to be able to cast a lvl 2 arcane spell, which takes 3 levels in wizard. you also need 2d6 sneak attack damage, which also takes 3 levels (in rogue)
1 rogue 1 assassin is fine, except that to become an assassin you need 5 ranks stealth, which you can't get until lvl 5 anyway.
I can't see a way to take Arcane trickster before lvl 7, 3 wiz, then three rogue.
This thread is a bit old, so here's an old answer that doesn't really apply.
1 Level Snakebite Striker
1 Level Rogue
1 Level Arcane Caster
1 Level of anything (skill requirement)
Arcane Trickster first level at level 5.
Spell-like Ability of second level (or higher).
This is ignoring retraining cheese. It's possible to get into Arcane Trickster super early due to odd wording with retraining, but you'll need to spend a lot of gold and will not have access immediately.