Two archetypes in the same class on the same level


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Ello, I was hoping somebody could help me out with this. I want to know if I can take two archetypes at the same time on the same level. I understand that you can take two archetypes in the same class as long as they don't conflict but I wanted to know if I could take two archetypes of the same class in the same level. For example a first level cross blooded tattooed sorcerer.


When you start taking a class you decide which archetypes to take and then (barring retraining rules) you are locked in. So to answer your question: Yes, the only way to take two archetypes is to take them at the same time.

Dark Archive

Thanks mate, helps clear that up :-)


Only exception is the Qinggong Monk, which specifically says that each replacement is optional.

Otherwise, yeah, it's all or nothing.


But you still start as a level 1 Qinggong monk. You just chose when to get something different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Minor quibble, if an archetype doesn't change anything until a certain level, you can technically wait until that level to take the archetype.

So if the first change doesn't happen until 5th (and it doesn't replace anything that is determined at 1st) you can hold off.


Rynjin wrote:

Minor quibble, if an archetype doesn't change anything until a certain level, you can technically wait until that level to take the archetype.

So if the first change doesn't happen until 5th (and it doesn't replace anything that is determined at 1st) you can hold off.

Is there a source for this? I'd find that very strange if it was the case. considering archetypes are not really something that you "add onto" you class while levelling it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It think that's a PFS rule, but it really just makes sense. If a base class and an archetype are the exact same until level 5, then you haven't really made the decision of whether you have the archetype or not.


Diekssus wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Minor quibble, if an archetype doesn't change anything until a certain level, you can technically wait until that level to take the archetype.

So if the first change doesn't happen until 5th (and it doesn't replace anything that is determined at 1st) you can hold off.

Is there a source for this? I'd find that very strange if it was the case. considering archetypes are not really something that you "add onto" you class while levelling it.

What he is saying is that it wont really affect anything if you wait.

As an example if an archetype does not affect your class until level 5 then it is reasonable to allow a player to wait a few levels to decide if he really wants to take it or not.

Personally I would not stop someone from delaying to pick one up. It is not hurting anything.


I think the rule is under retraining. Basically, if there isn't anything to retrain, then retraining is free.


Melkiador wrote:
I think the rule is under retraining. Basically, if there isn't anything to retrain, then retraining is free.

"Note that you don't have to use the retraining rules to take an archetype if your class level is low enough that the archetype doesn't modify any of your current class abilities. For example, if you're a 1st-level fighter who wants the archer archetype, that archetype doesn't replace any class abilities until fighter level 2, so you don't need to use the retraining rules at all—once you reach 2nd level, you can just decide to take the archer archetype."

PRD [retraining]


While the retraining rules allow you to retrain 'for free' to another archetype if no features are replaced the actual rules state you must select the archetype when you select your class.

APG p72 wrote:
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.

What this means is that if the GM does not allow you to use the retraining rules then you cannot select an archetype later in life (must select it when you first take the class).


It's not a free retrain Guass. It explicitly says that you aren't required to "use the retraining rules at all" and instead can just take an archetype after 1st as long as no class abilities have been replaced.


graystone wrote:
It's not a free retrain Guass. It explicitly says that you aren't required to "use the retraining rules at all" and instead can just take an archetype after 1st as long as no class abilities have been replaced.

Yes, but it says that in the retraining rules. If you're not using UC, then the APG rule stands.

_
glass.


So the rule is, you don't need the rule, but you can't use the fact that you don't need the rule because it is listed under a ruling that you are not using?

Interesting take.


But you do need that part of the rule, tiny though it is, to overrule the requirement in the APG.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your GM is that much of a rules stickler, I think you've got bigger problems.

That said, if you are planning to take an archetype, there's no reason not to do so up front. Or at least tell your GM you're planning to. It's possible to change your mind, of course. Or only notice an archetype you want after starting.


This: "Or only notice an archetype you want after starting."


thejeff wrote:

If your GM is that much of a rules stickler, I think you've got bigger problems.

That said, if you are planning to take an archetype, there's no reason not to do so up front. Or at least tell your GM you're planning to. It's possible to change your mind, of course. Or only notice an archetype you want after starting.

Yep, I agree. For the vast majority of instances, it matters very little to holding off picking and it's always good form to let the DM know where you plan to take your character. I'd only do it if I truly didn't know what I wanted to take (or I took over a character already in play).

That said, I'm pretty sure that the last printing trumps other rulings at least as far as RAW goes. It shouldn't matter where a clarification is. This is doubly true in this case where is comes out and says it's NOT an instance of using the optional rules, but just how things are meant to work.


If he is a crazy stickler, just tell him you would like to retire the character. Make a new one with the proper WBL (in our games that is usually higher than what we end up with) and that you would like to make a (insert archetype) here and you should be good to go. No special rules required.


wraithstrike wrote:

What he is saying is that it wont really affect anything if you wait.

As an example if an archetype does not affect your class until level 5 then it is reasonable to allow a player to wait a few levels to decide if he really wants to take it or not.

Personally I would not stop someone from delaying to pick one up. It is not hurting anything.

Mechanically I would fully agree with you(as balance is not affected until something is actually changing). However more often then not, archetypes are not just selective powerups, They represent training in specific traditions in regions where those would make sense. traditions that typically would take up someone's youth growing up in such circumstances. It is more a roleplay issue then anything. And while I would look unfavourably towards enforcing roleplaying trough rules. I was surprised at the (to me) strange notion of the rules doing the opposite, that's all.


Diekssus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

What he is saying is that it wont really affect anything if you wait.

As an example if an archetype does not affect your class until level 5 then it is reasonable to allow a player to wait a few levels to decide if he really wants to take it or not.

Personally I would not stop someone from delaying to pick one up. It is not hurting anything.

Mechanically I would fully agree with you(as balance is not affected until something is actually changing). However more often then not, archetypes are not just selective powerups, They represent training in specific traditions in regions where those would make sense. traditions that typically would take up someone's youth growing up in such circumstances. It is more a roleplay issue then anything. And while I would look unfavourably towards enforcing roleplaying trough rules. I was surprised at the (to me) strange notion of the rules doing the opposite, that's all.

Is it any odder than multiclassing into another class altogether? Not in my mind. Doing retraining off camera works just as well for both.


another minor quibble: you can't take cross-blooded and tattooed sorcerer since they modify many of the same things.


graystone wrote:
Diekssus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

What he is saying is that it wont really affect anything if you wait.

As an example if an archetype does not affect your class until level 5 then it is reasonable to allow a player to wait a few levels to decide if he really wants to take it or not.

Personally I would not stop someone from delaying to pick one up. It is not hurting anything.

Mechanically I would fully agree with you(as balance is not affected until something is actually changing). However more often then not, archetypes are not just selective powerups, They represent training in specific traditions in regions where those would make sense. traditions that typically would take up someone's youth growing up in such circumstances. It is more a roleplay issue then anything. And while I would look unfavourably towards enforcing roleplaying trough rules. I was surprised at the (to me) strange notion of the rules doing the opposite, that's all.
Is it any odder than multiclassing into another class altogether? Not in my mind. Doing retraining off camera works just as well for both.

It really depends on the archetype in question. As a GM, I generally don't allow players to multiclass into archetypes of classes that they don't have a cultural or religious tie with (if it is one of those). Multiclassing into the more "generic" archetypes (or base classes) is generally fine if there is a reasonable explaintion for it.


"Oh, my long lost forgotten cousin told me about this when we were kids."

Done.

Now I can take the class.

Thematic and cultural limitations are fine in any given game, but have nothing to due with the rules. The only thing that makes a class more exotic than another in the world is the GM's opinion. The only thing that makes it different in the real world is which book you are more familiar with.


Komoda wrote:
Thematic and cultural limitations are fine in any given game, but have nothing to due with the rules. The only thing that makes a class more exotic than another in the world is the GM's opinion. The only thing that makes it different in the real world is which book you are more familiar with.

So let me reiterate myself, It is not against the rules, and like I said before, I don't think the rules should enforce roleplaying. However in a roleplaying game, it IS strange in rules doing the opposite.

Komoda wrote:

"Oh, my long lost forgotten cousin told me about this when we were kids."

Done.

Now I can take the class.

If that is the extent that you take roleplaying, then I can imagine why you would not have a problem with it. Trivialising does that to issues.


This is the rules forum. What we would do for roleplaying reasons is less than relevant here


Diekssus wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Thematic and cultural limitations are fine in any given game, but have nothing to due with the rules. The only thing that makes a class more exotic than another in the world is the GM's opinion. The only thing that makes it different in the real world is which book you are more familiar with.

So let me reiterate myself, It is not against the rules, and like I said before, I don't think the rules should enforce roleplaying. However in a roleplaying game, it IS strange in rules doing the opposite.

Komoda wrote:

"Oh, my long lost forgotten cousin told me about this when we were kids."

Done.

Now I can take the class.

If that is the extent that you take roleplaying, then I can imagine why you would not have a problem with it. Trivialising does that to issues.

I feel that the GM marginalizing a selection of classes, feats, weapons, skills, or any other game option in the name of "role-playing" is the exact opposite of "role-playing." To me, it is "role-pigeon-holing."

"You wrote at 10 page backstory for your ninja? To bad there are no ninjas here to teach you. Start over."

"But Tommy is playing a ninja?"

"Yeah, but his character started on the other side of the world so it is OK, you didn't say that you did. Sorry."

Beyond that, it is not logical to believe that one has fleshed out their character to a degree that they can account for each and every encounter they have had through their lives. I can't even do it in real life! I know I have forgotten people that I have met. That does not mean that they have left no impression upon me. I know my second grade teacher taught me how to spell a lot of words. I can't remember her name to save my life. But I can still spell those words.

Also, why can't you just say that the character is the first of said class/skill/option etc.?

The poor role-playing is not in the allowing of taking options, it is the disallowing in the name of role-playing.


Soul Thief wrote:
Ello, I was hoping somebody could help me out with this. I want to know if I can take two archetypes at the same time on the same level. I understand that you can take two archetypes in the same class as long as they don't conflict but I wanted to know if I could take two archetypes of the same class in the same level. For example a first level cross blooded tattooed sorcerer.

There are abilities that both the tattooed sorc and the crossblooded sorc change/replace and thus they are not compatible.

For example the crossblooded sorc changes the 7th level bloodline feat while the tattooed sorc replaces it.


Komoda wrote:
Diekssus wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Thematic and cultural limitations are fine in any given game, but have nothing to due with the rules. The only thing that makes a class more exotic than another in the world is the GM's opinion. The only thing that makes it different in the real world is which book you are more familiar with.

So let me reiterate myself, It is not against the rules, and like I said before, I don't think the rules should enforce roleplaying. However in a roleplaying game, it IS strange in rules doing the opposite.

Komoda wrote:

"Oh, my long lost forgotten cousin told me about this when we were kids."

Done.

Now I can take the class.

If that is the extent that you take roleplaying, then I can imagine why you would not have a problem with it. Trivialising does that to issues.

I feel that the GM marginalizing a selection of classes, feats, weapons, skills, or any other game option in the name of "role-playing" is the exact opposite of "role-playing." To me, it is "role-pigeon-holing."

"You wrote at 10 page backstory for your ninja? To bad there are no ninjas here to teach you. Start over."

"But Tommy is playing a ninja?"

"Yeah, but his character started on the other side of the world so it is OK, you didn't say that you did. Sorry."

Beyond that, it is not logical to believe that one has fleshed out their character to a degree that they can account for each and every encounter they have had through their lives. I can't even do it in real life! I know I have forgotten people that I have met. That does not mean that they have left no impression upon me. I know my second grade teacher taught me how to spell a lot of words. I can't remember her name to save my life. But I can still spell those words.

Also, why can't you just say that the character is the first of said class/skill/option etc.?

The poor role-playing is not in the allowing of taking options, it is the disallowing in the name of role-playing.

It appears that you enjoy rambling, as nothing you've said relates to anything I've said. And aside from your self gratification, I'm left rather disappointed by everything you've said.


Yes yes, we get it, you're part of the "One True Roleplaying Master Race™", join the line with the other ones wagging their fingers disapprovingly at everyone who does things differently than they do (including the other members of the club).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was a flip post, I will give you that. I must have been in a mood.

The point was, as a player, I have encountered the exact scenario that I posted. It wasn't just a thought exercise. I couldn't believe it. I was playing in a new group with 30+ year olds and two of them had Samurai themed characters. I showed up with a ninja character after being told all classes were legal.

When they realized I was a ninja and not a rogue, all heck broke loose. I had what I thought was a cool background and a lot of work put into the RP part. But because I didn't say that I learned my trade on the other side of the world, where the other characters came from, I was forced to change my PC.

They thought it was a wonderful exercise in role-playing. I hadn't seen gaming like that since I was a teenager. As you can imagine, that was the last time I played in that group.

The game is about exploring roles, not fitting into them. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to disallow a class/skill/feature for player plot purposes*. If you don't like the mechanics, I understand that. But, in my opinion, if you are banning stuff because plot, you are not adding to it, you are only taking away from it.

The rest of my post was an attempt to show, logically, that there are so many reasons why it should be OK to allow just about any class/ability etc. into a game via plot reasons. There are quadzillimon (yes, that's a word) of plot reasons to make it OK. Don't limit your players, tell them how they CAN fit it into the story.

*Now, if you think Half-Orcs or Ninjas or Firearms don't fit the ENTIRE game or are too powerful, that is SO much different than the "it doesn't fit YOUR background" excuse.

YMMV.


Komoda wrote:
It was a flip post, I will give you that. I must have been in a mood..

Seems like it, its fine.

Komoda wrote:
The rest of my post was an attempt to show, logically, that there are so many reasons why it should be OK to allow just about any class/ability etc. into a game via plot reasons. There are quadzillimon (yes, that's a word) of plot reasons to make it OK. Don't limit your players, tell them how they CAN fit it into the story.

And while I understand, my problem with it what you posted was the extreme nature. Point being, if there are a quadzillimon reasons to make it work roleplaying wise. Then why should I allow an archtype choice, that is exclusively trained in one location in the world, with the character roleplaying a story that intentionally has nothing to do with it. because he wants to?

That is the other extreme side of the story. neither are correct. And thus the point, which I shall now reiterate again, that rules should not enforce roleplay, yet the rules doing the opposite is strange. Because I think that the rules forcing issues like this into either extreme is strange considering this is a roleplaying game, where both the game and the roleplaying aspect are important.

Also Rynjin, stop being an ass.


Would you rather someone come to the table with a Ninja with no back story, and say tell me what my character is?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:

Only exception is the Qinggong Monk, which specifically says that each replacement is optional.

Otherwise, yeah, it's all or nothing.

Oathbound Paladin is sort of another. You gain it by swearing an Oath and leave it when that oath is fulfilled.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
Would you rather someone come to the table with a Ninja with no back story, and say tell me what my character is?

Would you rather read a book, or write one yourself? don't get me wrong your question is valid, if only it wasn't as laded with bias. frankly, both side of that question will have people prefer it. It solves nothing except point out an established issue that is already being discussed.


Diekssus wrote:
Then why should I allow an archtype choice, that is exclusively trained in one location in the world, with the character roleplaying a story that intentionally has nothing to do with it. because he wants to?

If you allow people with the archtype in the game then you have already conceded that people with knowledge in that sort of training aren't totally limited geographically. If that charcter made it to where the game is, then why can't someone that can train you in that skill/style/archtype do it? A ninja master is less able to travel the world than a 1st level trainee?


graystone wrote:
Diekssus wrote:
If that charcter made it to where the game is

that inplies that he didn't already start there, exactly my point. Why would it be so bad to include such a location or an encounter that would suffice be included in that story?

It isn't, unless you go out of your way to avoid it.


Diekssus wrote:
graystone wrote:
Diekssus wrote:
If that charcter made it to where the game is

that inplies that he didn't already start there, exactly my point. Why would it be so bad to include such a location or an encounter that would suffice be included in that story?

It isn't, unless you go out of your way to avoid it.

To an extent, it's how much you expect someone to go out of their way to do so. If the only difference between a 'bad' and 'good' background is that my master wasn't from the area, I'm not seeing making a big deal about the 'bad' one.


graystone wrote:
To an extent, it's how much you expect someone to go out of their way to do so.

If you consider making something that is part of your story a part of your story 'going out of your way'. then you must have it very hard :P It would be more effort to come up with reasons why you wouldn't do those things and why you couldn't have gone there. That list is inevitably going to be a lot longer.


Diekssus wrote:
graystone wrote:
To an extent, it's how much you expect someone to go out of their way to do so.
If you consider making something that is part of your story a part of your story 'going out of your way'. then you must have it very hard :P It would be more effort to come up with reasons why you wouldn't do those things and why you couldn't have gone there. That list is inevitably going to be a lot longer.

LOL You missed my point 100%. I may have a fun and wonderful background with plenty of plot hooks and everything you'd ever want in a background. However, NONE of it has ANYTHING to do with my (or my master) being a ninja/samurai much like it does't matter if my fighter master grew up two towns over. In MY story, I may not even know where my master came from or how he learned those strange abilities. NEEDING to make a point of your master's origin is THEN 'going out of your way'.


graystone wrote:
Diekssus wrote:
graystone wrote:
To an extent, it's how much you expect someone to go out of their way to do so.
If you consider making something that is part of your story a part of your story 'going out of your way'. then you must have it very hard :P It would be more effort to come up with reasons why you wouldn't do those things and why you couldn't have gone there. That list is inevitably going to be a lot longer.
LOL You missed my point 100%. I may have a fun and wonderful background with plenty of plot hooks and everything you'd ever want in a background. However, NONE of it has ANYTHING to do with my (or my master) being a ninja/samurai much like it does't matter if my fighter master grew up two towns over. In MY story, I may not even know where my master came from or how he learned those strange abilities. NEEDING to make a point of your master's origin is THEN 'going out of your way'.

The fact that you claimed I missed your point is an assumption on your part, and in incorrect one at that. An assumption based on a very narrow view. You named an example that is very specific and criticize at point made at the bigger picture. Regardless, if in your backstory you were trained by a samurai that was say wandering, and you'd have no cultural ties, fine. However, that samurai would be a ronin, and the samurai order that he teaches you would probably be influenced by that. Point being, that even such choices of origin, which allow you the freedom of selecting a class that is seemingly out of place, would also carry implications and consequence.

You make a big point of it being "MY story" and accuse me of apparently "NEEDING" my players explain things about masters etc. Yet the biggest problems I have are within the holes of your PC. And the "going out of the way" part, is still you explaining that you were trained in a foreign art by a traveller and all of the hooks and pitfalls that come with that. in stead of, I'm from there, now I'm here, traveling.

However as has been pointed out before, this thread is not about whether YOU role-play properly. It was the discussion of a rule that establishes that you don't have to role-play with mechanics that are role-play heavy and me finding that strange. So stick to the broader point, this IS still the rules forum


Diekssus wrote:
The fact that you claimed I missed your point is an assumption on your part, and in incorrect one at that.

Would it be better to say 'from what you wrote it would seem you missed my point 100%'? Because that's what it seemed. This is all going back to Komoda's post and you are still seeming to read it out of context, judging from you last posts comments.

Points:
#1 "MY story": Yes, what else would you call a persons background? Someone elses story?
#2 "NEEDING": As per the basis of this debate, not allowing some legal rule element because of a requirement to justify it in the background.

If you wish to drop this debate because you think it's offtopic, then by all means we can.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Diekssus, out of curiosity, do you make players explain how they obtained each piece of equipment at level 1? So if they grew up in a desert, they'd better have a good reason ready for how they own a wooden bow or shield?

Some prestige classes are tied to specific locations, but as far as I know, none of the base classes are, and are legal options for any character from anywhere. A GM may reasonably say they're entirely disallowing some, but it is unreasonable to allow some players but not others within the same game.

Sovereign Court

Is there no such thing as refluffing a class to some people?

I have no issue letting a player in a game refluff any option that fits the concept, location specific or not.

I regularly use Rich Parents with out being from a rich family, but use it as previously gain through work.

Sure, it isn't RAW, but it helps make FGtP (Fun Game to Play).


thejeff wrote:
If your GM is that much of a rules stickler, I think you've got bigger problems.

1. This is the Rules forum. Here, we're all rules sticklers, or should be.

2. I would not enforce this requirement in a home game, even if I wasn't using UCam's retraining rules. But my Pathfinder play is all PFS at the moment. And in PFS I would have been required to be such a stickler pre UCam (and again, should it ever be removed from AR). Although I am mostly a stickler with characters I make, since I don't audit other people's characters unless something really glaring leaps out at me...

_
glass.


Cuuniyevo wrote:
Diekssus, out of curiosity, do you make players explain how they obtained each piece of equipment at level 1?

I might, I've questioned some who wanted to start with an intelligent item. I asked him to make a story surrounding that.

Cuuniyevo wrote:
none of the base classes are, and are legal options for any character from anywhere1

we were talking about archetypes, this entire post is and a lot of them are tied to either locations, cultures or religions.


graystone wrote:
If you wish to drop this debate because you think it's offtopic, then by all means we can.

I'm saying you should drop your direction of the debate because its offtopic.

graystone wrote:

Points:

#1 "MY story": Yes, what else would you call a persons background? Someone elses story?
#2 "NEEDING": As per the basis of this debate, not allowing some legal rule element because of a requirement to justify it in the background.

Aside from the irony of you calling this making "points" when they are nothing of the sort, as to the you seeming to claim I misunderstand the context, that is still going back to some people taking this to a specific roleplaying case (the choice of ninja as a class fe)as opposed to the broader rules discussion. The context you supposedly discuss has no place in this specific topic.

However this has now gone into a meta discussion or discusseption if you prefer. which IS most assuredly off-topic

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The rules do not support an immutable flavor.

This is a very important thing for all to remember.

Even when games are very to the letter on rules, such as PFS, flavor is still a mutable thing.

In fact, in many places within the rules, it notes that flavor is mutable.

So, for those who run games with immutable flavor, they are using a Houserule.


Diekssus at the table how would you determine eligibility? Does a character have to be from a set location? Do you keep logs of everywhere a master of a Archetype might have moved to and settled at? And most importantly do you make this clear upfront with you players?

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two archetypes in the same class on the same level All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.