we have stated that to him be he's trying to weasel his way arround the word "or" he's nowtchanging an ability twice, and he's not replaceing an ability twice, so he believes changing then replacing an ability is allowed due to his interpretation of the word "or".
I understand, but they asked where it said that. I pointed it out. That they are flat-out wrong in their interpretation is pretty evident.
Then get something from the books that mentions you can chose the order in which ability changes/replacements is allowed,
That's an overly legalistic view that ignores the context of the rule. If you can choose that order in which other things apply then there is no reason to believe you can't choose the order of changes/replacements. if it is some how different then other things it would/should be mention. That is just basic critical thinking.
It's easy to claim I have ignored other arguments, point out one.
@Nocte ex Mortis All those examples say replaced not change. If you aren't going to read the thread don't argue.
I did read the thread. The entire thing, from beginning to end. You are wrong.
bverji is trying to read it in a very limited way.
Do you deny that there is more then one way to interpret the use of "or"?
If there is a different interpretation of the word "or" then what else do you base your interpretation of the rule?
You that is the only thing you are using to interpret your concept of the rule then it is you who is narrowly interpreting the word "or"
I provided other support to show how my interpretation of the word "or" is correct, Everyone elses "support" has been this is how the rule is so of course I am right.
Read the rule yourself, it's as clear as day, You can not take multiple archetypes if more than one of them affect the same class feature. What part of that is ambiguous to you?
No it say you can't replace a replacement or change a change. It is pretty clear that is the intent and when you look at other rules in relation it is very clear. it is also supported by out side sources that talk directly with Piazo and have direct access to rule clarifications.
There is more than one way to interpret the word "or", however your version of that interpretation dose not conform to the the rules as written for archetypes and is thus not applicable in RAW nor dose it follow RAI. If you wish to play it the way you are interpreting it then feel free to start a homebrew, but it is not rules legal and thus is not a valid answer in the rules forum.
bervji, you are a perfect exact example of what I was discussing in a thread regarding Hero Lab awhile back. Hero Lab is a good 3rd party tool, but it is just a tool. It is not the rules. Your assertion that Hero Lab supports the rules in ANY way is completely and utterly WRONG. It is not rules support. It cannot be rules support. It will never be rules support. It is a 3rd party tool and nothing more.
Now, with that said, to answer your question, the English language is highly mutable. There are quite a few ways to read the same passage. However, you have to read it in context and you are clearly reading it out of the intended context.
The context here is clearly that if two archetypes modify or alter the same ability you cannot combine them.
The context is not individual statements of: If two archetypes modify the same ability you cannot combine them.
and
If two archetypes alter the same ability you cannot combine them.
There is really no point debating this with you further. The original poster got his answer 3 months ago. You raised this thread from the dead and if it wasn't to troll us you are doing a pretty good imitation of a troll.
Don't feed the troll guys. We have fed him enough. :)
however your version of that interpretation dose not conform to the the rules as written for archetypes .
Easy to claim, explain how...because I have
1. shown what a change is
2. that choosing the order is consistent in the rules
3. That this is interpreted the same way by the closet known association to Pazio.
@Guass what makes your interpretation of the rules more valuable then a company that has an actual business relationship with Pazio, and directly talks to them about the rules? As I said before the argument they Aren't Pazio doesn't mean they don't have significantly more knowledge to base their interpretation of the rules then you. If case you have forgotten you aren't Pazio either.
Your argument is a strawman I am not saying Hero Lab are Pazio; just that they have more information to judge the rules then you, and thus is support that the interpretation I present is correct.
bverji, absolutely nothing, but your citation of them as a rules source has no bearing. They are not a rules source. They can, and have been, wrong before.
Frankly, people keep citing Hero Lab as if it is part of Paizo but it isn't. And the fact it has a business relationship with Paizo does not mean a damned thing other than they might get their questions answered a bit faster than us consumers.
Frankly, I'd like to see your citation for 'Hero Lab gets all its questions answered immediately and they asked about this particular topic so they know better than the rest of us'. Please supply that would you?
|
@Guass what makes your interpretation of the rules more valuable then a company that has an actual business relationship with Pazio, and directly talks to them about the rules?
Prove that Hero Labs works directly with Paizo, and not, as explicitly mentioned to me in my experience with Wolf Lair in reporting issues with updates not mirrored in Hero Lab, from posts and items from Paizo given on the boards.
2: You are not reading the rule as written.
{quote=Rule's text]A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.
None of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature that has already been replaced or altered.
If a feature is altered, it can no longer be replaced or altered by a different archetype.
If a feature is replaced, it can no longer be replaced or altered by a different archetype.
So, if one archetype changes a feature to something else, even if it qualifies as the original feature for feats and magic items, it is still not the original class feature.
Also note the statement in the rule: from the core class. Not from another archetype, but from the core class.
bverji, absolutely nothing, but your citation of them as a rules source has no bearing. They are not a rules source. They can, and have been, wrong before.
Sure, that's not the point. how often are they right and how much more often are they right then you. That's the point. Just because something isn't 100% accurate doesn't discount them as a credible source. It is argumentative to that they aren't more of an authority then you.
bverji, absolutely nothing, but your citation of them as a rules source has no bearing. They are not a rules source. They can, and have been, wrong before.
Sure, that's not the point. how often are they right and how much more often are they right then you. That's the point. Just because something isn't 100% accurate doesn't discount them as a credible source. It is argumentative to that they aren't more of an authority then you.
It's exactly this type of poor understanding about what a source is and it's significance that illustrates the weakness in your reasoning.
Nope. Nope, nope, nope.
Not gonna get drawn into this one.
Prove that Hero Labs works directly with Paizo, and not, as explicitly mentioned to me in my experience with Wolf Lair in reporting issues with updates not mirrored in Hero Lab, from posts and items from Paizo given on the boards.
Right from their website• "We license the right to produce data packages for almost every game system Hero Lab supports. That means we’re working directly with the companies that produce your favorite games, so we can ensure that our software supports their games optimally."
2: You are not reading the rule as written.
Same quote over and over using the word "or"
So, if one archetype changes a feature to something else, even if it qualifies as the original feature for feats and magic items, it is still not the original class feature.
Where is this from, because it is in direct conflict with the FAQ
It doesn't matter how you interpret the "or" because...
When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them
bverji, I am not going to keep going rounds with you on this, but I will make this last statement.
I never once claimed that I, personally, was more accurate than Hero Lab regarding any specific rule.
What I stated is that they are not a legitimate rules source for citation because they are not Paizo.
It does not matter if they license the rights to publish Paizo content or not. Licensing the rights does not mean they have a hotline to Paizo's Developer team. They might, but what you cited is not the same as a statement that they are working with the DEVELOPERS. Finally, it does not mean they are correct. Hero Lab has a method to report errors because they do make them. You should accept that is a possibility here.
Now, with that said, the majority of people in this, and many other threads have an opinion that is opposite of yours. So, either you misunderstood Hero Lab on this issue and you are wrong, OR Hero Lab is wrong and you are wrong on this issue, OR the majority of users are wrong on this issue.
Which one do you think it is? I know where I would put my money.
Anyhow, enjoy your time arguing against the majority. :)
OR the majority of users are wrong. Which one do you think it is? I know where I would put my money.
Seriously have you read these boards? I can find thousands of instances where "the majority" were completely wrong in their interpretation, exactly because they chose to interpret a single word--phrase independent of the rules as a whole.
When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them
You know you've proven you point when people resort to calling you names, and choosing to cut off parts of quotes that disprove the point they are trying to make. Now I just need someone to attack my spelling/grammar to obtain the trifecta.
Could I be wrong? sure, but nothing presented here has been an effective argument. Everyone has failed to sufficiently address my support and the only two lines in the rules addresses the opposing view are ambiguous. What I have presented are far stronger reasons for my interpretation. It is obvious that people are responding out of a biasness for a view point rather then objectivity.
I realize there are many people out there that interpreted the rule differently, but thus far I have meet a lot of opposition over the interpretations of rules that where just obviously wrong; usually because people had bias brought from 3.5. So far,I have a very good track record for my accuracy of rule interpretation.
Please include the part that you think changes it.
For your convenience...
Alternate Class Features
Most of the options presented on the following pages include a host of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must choose to use the standard class features found in the Core Rulebook or those listed in one of the archetypes presented here. Each alternate class feature replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the elemental fist class feature of the monk of the four winds replaces the stunning fist class feature of the monk. When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but replacing them with equally powerful options. All of the other class features found in the core class and not mentioned among the alternate class features remain unchanged and are acquired normally when the character reaches the appropriate level (unless noted otherwise). A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.
Please include the part that you think changes it.
Do I really need to point this out a Fourth time?
Alternate Class Features
When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but REPLACING them with equally powerful options.
It specifically says replacing
A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.
Which was further explained in the FAQ as not really being true. I assume this answer is do to the ambiguousness of "does not count as" as in the FAQ is makes clear what counting as a class feature is.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.
The word "or" is in contention. does it mean you can't do this or that, OR does it mean you can't do this and that. If it is to be interpreted as you interprete it...it really should be "nor"
For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature.
Which changes the same and replaces the same; in fact none of the examples given show that you can't replace a changed feature. they all say you can't change a change nor replace a replace....which is yet even another reason that supports my interpretation.
Bverji is correct about the Winter Witch/Scarred Witch Doctor. They are compatible, and they have shown ample evidence to support their assertion. Your game, your table, feel free to interpret the rules differently. Bverji even has FAQ on their side.
I get that it's not a popular interpretation, but it holds water.
The *only* argument against it, and hasn't been addressed, is this:
"Alternate Class Features
Most of the options presented on the following pages include a host of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must choose to use the standard class features found in the Core Rulebook or those listed in one of the archetypes presented here. Each alternate class feature replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the elemental fist class feature of the monk of the four winds replaces the stunning fist class feature of the monk. When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but replacing them with equally powerful options. All of the other class features found in the core class and not mentioned among the alternate class features remain unchanged and are acquired normally when the character reaches the appropriate level (unless noted otherwise). A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature."
Thing is, bverji's interpretation of "or" is sound, English major here. Aside from that, bverji's other evidence holds up. However, if you want to argue against their case, the *only* way to to that, as written, is to argue semantics based on the first bit of "EACH alternate class feature REPLACES a specific class feature from its parent class." As such, you could argue that since the winter witch archetype lists Familiar as a feature, that even though it only alters it, it also simultaneously REPLACES it.
That's a case of rules as intended. And that, it seems, bverji's evidence from the FAQ supports his assertions, like it or not.
He is wrong. You can not trade similar features. It must be the original. If herolab is allowing this it should be noted as a future change by this time next week.
Please include the part that you think changes it.Do I really need to point this out a Fourth time?
Alternate Class Features
When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but REPLACING them with equally powerful options.It specifically says replacing
A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.Which was further explained in the FAQ as not really being true. I assume this answer is do to the ambiguousness of "does not count as" as in the FAQ is makes clear what counting as a class feature is.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.The word "or" is in contention. does it mean you can't do this or that, OR does it mean you can't do this and that. If it is to be interpreted as you interprete it...it really should be "nor"
For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature.Which changes the same and replaces the same; in fact none of the examples given show that you can't replace a changed feature. they all say you can't change a change nor replace a replace....which is yet even another reason that supports my interpretation.
Absolutely nothing you just said overrides
must take all of them
is yet even another reason that supports my interpretation.
Absolutely nothing you just said overrides
must take all of them
Which I have address before. How about you get a dictionary and look up the words take, have and keep.
While you are at it look up or and nor
|
|
Just to throw some more water on bverji:
Per Paizo DMT, FAQs only relate to the subject they cover, so your FAQ, since that is not what it covers, has NO BEARING on this issue.
So, just to reiterate:
If a feature is altered, it can no longer be replaced or altered by a different archetype.
If a feature is replaced, it can no longer be replaced or altered by a different archetype.
What part of either of those statements do you find difficult to understand?
The rule is an IIF, or an IF AND ONLY IF.
is yet even another reason that supports my interpretation.
Absolutely nothing you just said overrides
must take all of themWhich I have address before. How about you get a dictionary and look up the words take, have and keep.
While you are at it look up or and nor
You haven't addressed it.
I understand you are saying you cannot change a change or replace a replace but that you can replace a changed. Even if that were true (which it is not), that in no way overrides the rule that you must take all of an archetype's abilities. If you replace the changed ability, then you no longer have it, then the archetype isn't legal.
Just to throw some more water on bverji:
Per Paizo DMT, FAQs only relate to the subject they cover, so your FAQ, since that is not what it covers, has NO BEARING on this issue.
FaQs are further explanations of the rules and the rules work in conjunction with each other. What you are suggesting is like taking one sentence from a book and trying to interpret every ounce of meaning with out considering the whole book. That is literally functional illiteracy and why people come to such absurd interpretations, because they interpreted rule based off nothing other then a single sentence. The FAQ defines what is a change you can certainly use that definition to interpret what a change is in more then that one example.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my understanding of bverji's position is the theory that the altered class feature still counts as the original class feature.
So something that alters say weapon training, but still is weapon training could be replaced.
However something that alters weapon training, and is no longer weapon training could not be replaced.
The other argument he is making is that if an archetype chooses between one of two options for a class ability for you then you can still replace that class ability with another archetype, since you still have the class ability in question (indeed even unaltered -- you simply had the decision of which option it was taken away).
Since the FAQ in question states:
"Archetype: If an archetype replaces a class ability with a more specific version of that ability (or one that works similarly to the replaced ability), does the archetype's ability count as the original ability for the purpose of rules that improve the original ability?
It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability.
Pathfinder Design Team, 07/12/13"
So as long as the altered form states that it is still the original ability and doesn't state that there are any limits on how it counting as the specific ability then it is still the specific ability required and can be given up.
That is the argument right Bverji?
So a two-handed fighter could in theory choose an archetype that replaces weapon training since he still gets weapon training (the choice is simply made for him) but a free hand fighter cannot since weapon training is replaced wholesale.
The FAQ in question would have bearing since it doesn't state that the ability counting as the original ability is limited in scope.
Okay, let's try a different tactic:Why do you think the designers place any restriction on combining archetypes in the first place?
FOr balance, to restrict certain combinations, but a more pertinent question is if they wanted such a narrow crossover: why allow multi classing at all? Why allow classes to shift tiered abilities to allow MANY More options?
And with that it mind, what should the conclusion be for if someone desires to both alter and swap the same ability?
explain? You mean what to do when you Change an ability and then swap it for another?
Abraham: Yes, that's how I interpret it, too.
correct
And honestly, as for the winter witch specifically? It only says they must choose their familiar from a smaller list than normally available. It doesn't alter any of its function, really. Then, SWD outright replaces the familiar (limited or not) with the fetish mask.
I Even if that were true (which it is not), that in no way overrides the rule that you must take all of an archetype's abilities. If you replace the changed ability, then you no longer have it, then the archetype isn't legal.
I am going to try one more time before I stop responding to you. You are using the word take wrong. if you take a feat, and then take another feat that replaces it; it doesn't mean you didn't take the first feat. Even if it was all done at character creation
| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are two separate situations here that merit their own discussions as well:
There was an FAQ that stated that an archetype ability that states it is the original ability is still the original ability. How far does this concept extend? Does it extend to other archetypes? Specifically:
If an archetype demands you choose one option of a class ability can you still replace that class ability with another archetype?
For example: If I take a wizard archetype that states I must choose an item for my arcane bond, can I still choose a different wizard archetype that replaces my arcane bond?
Second example: If I take a fighter archetype that states my weapon training 1 must be with a specific weapon can I take another archetype that replaces weapon training 1?
And:
If an archetype changes an ability and states this change is still the original ability can the altered ability be replaced by another archetype?
First Example: If I take a barbarian archetype that alters rage and states it is rage can I take another barbarian archetype that replaces rage?
Second Example: If I take a bard archetype that alters bardic performance and states it counts as bardic performance may I take another archetype that replaces bardic performance all together?
FAQ if this is what you want answered.
Abraham: That was well-written. Those are precisely the circumstances that are under contention. I FAQ'd your post.
Question 1: wrote: Yes
example one: According to the FAQ it depends on how it is worded, but then the question of replacement.
Example 2: The rules already state Tiered abilities can be traded up and down the tier. So obviously you can trade out a tier. The question is can you replace another tier or the changed tier.
Question 2: Yes
example one: It would certainly depend on the wording, but yes that is part of my interpretation.
example 2: This is the question
The rules for archetype stacking are overly generalized, in an effort to try to make a single rule that works for all current and future archetypes. What it fails to do, however, is define what a 'class feature' is.
Honestly, Paizo would have been better off spending a small amount of time building a compatibility matrix themselves and putting it in the PRD, where it could be maintained and updated as archetypes were created.
Looking at intention:
There are two reasons one might want to disallow a combination of two archetypes.
Reason 1 - The archetypes both modify something and create a mechanically conflicting rule situation, that would either take GM intervention to handle, or simply makes things impossible.
Reason 2 - The archetypes both modify/remove something that is intended to be a penalty/negative trade-off to the character, such that you gain benefits from both archetypes, while only taking a single penalty.
There are many situations where a combination of archetypes might both affect the same feature while not triggering either Reason 1 or Reason 2 above. Currently, with the overly-generalized rule, these would end up being disallowed anyway.
One example would be an archetype that grants additional feat options to a bonus feat list (Monk - Maneuver Master), combining with an archetype that removes the bonus feat at a given level (Monk - Underfoot Adept). By RAW, 'bonus feat' is a singular class feature, that each of these archetypes alters/removes - however, this combination in no way causes an issue with either of the above reasons to disallow a given combination.
Another example would be an archetype that makes a major change to a class feature, like changing the way spells are cast and/or the ability used for spellcasting (Magus - Eldritch Scion) combining with an archetype that penalizes a different aspect of the same feature, like reducing spells/day counts (Magus - Soul Forger or Kapenia Dancer). Again, These both affect 'spellcasting', but affect unrelated aspects of that single feature.
The bug has been reported to Herolab. As for any non-HL rulings I would not worry about it. 95% of us know how it works.
The bug has been reported to Herolab. As for any non-HL rulings I would not worry about it. 95% of us know how it works.
I'm glad you reported that bug to HL; I am sure no one else has questioned it, since 95% know how it works, over the last two years and it had been determined not a bug.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
based upon the misinterpretation of the word "or"
Your view is RAW.
His view is RAW.
He isn't misinterpreting the word "or", he is interpreting it. He is interpreting it like everyone else I've ever know interprets it. You are interpreting it in a new and interesting way that I don't' fully understand. Maybe you can explain how when something says you can't do blah or blah2 allows you do do blah2 if you are not currently doing blah?
So, Sacred Servant alters spell casting, but it is still spell casting.
Oathbound adds spells to the spell list, but it is also still spell casting.
Does this mean that they stack, since the ability is never replaced, and in the text only "changed" by one of them?
So, Sacred Servant alters spell casting, but it is still spell casting.
Oathbound adds spells to the spell list, but it is also still spell casting.
Does this mean that they stack, since the ability is never replaced, and in the text only "changed" by one of them?
Depends on the oathbond, but spell list and spell casting are separate class features, so they don't over lap.
SO SS would NOT stack with:
Fiends
Undeath
Chastity
I think the others are good, but I'm not overly familiar with all the paladin oathbond archetypes.
