Alternate Classes


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

75 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
ACG wrote:

Sometimes an archetype exchanges

so many class features that it almost becomes a new
class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a
representation of all of the class features, even those
that it shares with its base class. While still technically
an archetype
, characters who play this class have all
the tools they need to advance their character in one
convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai
are all examples of an alternate class.

So the ACG says that an alternate class is an archetype. But I'm getting a developer and PFS leaders saying that alternate classes are not archetypes despite this part of the ACG. So if they are/aren't archetypes what are they and how do they work? I felt that this quote from the ACG finally cleared it up officially, but now I'm told it's not meaning what it says it means.

One of the arguments was that these alternate classes have archetypes and thus can't be archetypes, but I feel that it just means that you have an archetype for what is technically an archetype, thus you're not applying two archetypes to the base class, and thus you're not altering the same class feature.

If alternate classes are their own class then how come the ninja can access archetypes for the rogue class as they aren't listed as archetypes for the ninja, while the samurai and anti-paladin do have listed archetypes? If it's because of the line, "An alternate class operates exactly as a base class" then wouldn't the alternate class operate exactly as the base class in being unchained since the alternate is operating as the base class?

If the quoted ACG isn't a good official source or isn't correct can we have a FAQ or ERRATA to clarify what was actually meant to be conveyed? And how do alternate classes actually work with everything?


Mark says he's marked off the "technically an archetype" in the ACG for an errata.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Sorry, what's yor question?

Is it. "Is the Ninja a (highly involved) archetype of the rogue, and therefore qualifies for the free unchained rebuild?"

Or is it more like " Are alternate classes archetypes of a progenitor class?"

Or something else? Sorry, I'm feeling a bit slow this morning..


Good, I hope it can address the issue of alternate classes. And just because it's been marked to be looked at doesn't mean it's going to change from what it currently says.


Apocryphile wrote:

Sorry, what's yor question?

Is it. "Is the Ninja a (highly involved) archetype of the rogue, and therefore qualifies for the free unchained rebuild?"

Or is it more like " Are alternate classes archetypes of a progenitor class?"

Or something else? Sorry, I'm feeling a bit slow this morning..

PFS announced today how it would deal with unchained.

The rule is that rogues can switch into unchained and use rogue archetypes.

It was pointed out that ninja is technically an archetype

The answer from the PFS staff was no unchained ninjas.

Hence the current rules kerfuffle. Apparently they're going to try to remove the line about alternate classes being archtypes. I'm not sure what that would do to alternate classes that use compatable archtypes though.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I really don't get what you are asking either.

It seems pretty clear that alternate classes are base classes with the further restriction that they can't stack levels with their associated class (just as with an archetype).

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you are taking a paragraph about design principles as rules text. Your quote above is clearly flavor text intended to help GMs/prospective designers reason about how alternate classes might be designed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Apocryphile wrote:

Sorry, what's yor question?

Is it. "Is the Ninja a (highly involved) archetype of the rogue, and therefore qualifies for the free unchained rebuild?"

Or is it more like " Are alternate classes archetypes of a progenitor class?"

Or something else? Sorry, I'm feeling a bit slow this morning..

One of the questions that triggered this was "Can I multiclass an unchained rogue and a ninja?"

Another was "Can I apply the 'ninja archetype' to an unchained rogue?"


I don't have the Unchained book, so maybe someone can help me out for my likely next character, not for PFS...

How does the Ninja map to the Unchained Rogue? Does swapping out Trapfinding, Evasion and Trap Sense still work?

-Matt


To clarify I guess I can simplify what I'm asking.

1) Are alternate classes archetypes of their base class?
1.YES)
2) How come some have their own archetypes?
3) Why can't the unchained rogue go ninja for an unchained ninja if it's just an archetype?

1.NO)
2) Why does the ACG say they are?
3) Why can the ninja take rogue archetypes since they aren't listed as ninja archetypes and the other alternate classes have their own archetype list?
4) Whatever the reason for 3, why wouldn't that apply for the unchained rogue?
5) Since it's its own class that can't class with the core rogue would that make it able to class with the unchained rogue as it's not the core rogue that the ninja was based off of? (I don't think so but adding it for completion of related questions)

Liberty's Edge

Mattastrophic wrote:

I don't have the Unchained book, so maybe someone can help me out for my likely next character, not for PFS...

How does the Ninja map to the Unchained Rogue? Does swapping out Trapfinding, Evasion and Trap Sense still work?

-Matt

The Unchained Rogue does not change any of its current abilities (except that Trap Sense is now called Danger sense and is a bit better--and it specifically says it counts as trap sense for all purposes.) The Core rogue abilities also don't change what levels they are available.

So there is literally no way that an archetype could not work with the unchained rogue.

However, its been ruled for PFS, with Mark's input, that the Ninja cannot use the Unchained Rogue as its chassis.

I expect that any errata or FAQs that come out regarding alternate classes and the Unchained versions of classes, will indicate that alternate classes cannot use the unchained versions.

If this is not for PFS, check with your GM and see if they feel differently.

Liberty's Edge

Chess Pwn wrote:

To clarify I guess I can simplify what I'm asking.

1) Are alternate classes archetypes of their base class?
1.YES)
2) How come some have their own archetypes?
3) Why can't the unchained rogue go ninja for an unchained ninja if it's just an archetype?

1.NO)
2) Why does the ACG say they are?
3) Why can the ninja take rogue archetypes since they aren't listed as ninja archetypes and the other alternate classes have their own archetype list?
4) Whatever the reason for 3, why wouldn't that apply for the unchained rogue?
5) Since it's its own class that can't class with the core rogue would that make it able to class with the unchained rogue as it's not the core rogue that the ninja was based off of? (I don't think so but adding it for completion of related questions)

Can you indicate where you've read that its been officially declared that Alternate Classes can take Archetypes? I don't know if that's been officially clarified.


OK. I don't see how an Unchained Ninja would break anything, so let's hope that the GM feels the same way!

Although, if I can figure out how to get an Unchained Rogue/Core Monk (wow, so many descriptors these days, can't wait for 2nd Ed) with a ki pool big enough for Forgotten Trick, which is all I really want out of Ninja anyways, I might be okay either way.

-Matt


Andrew Christian wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

To clarify I guess I can simplify what I'm asking.

1) Are alternate classes archetypes of their base class?
1.YES)
2) How come some have their own archetypes?
3) Why can't the unchained rogue go ninja for an unchained ninja if it's just an archetype?

1.NO)
2) Why does the ACG say they are?
3) Why can the ninja take rogue archetypes since they aren't listed as ninja archetypes and the other alternate classes have their own archetype list?
4) Whatever the reason for 3, why wouldn't that apply for the unchained rogue?
5) Since it's its own class that can't class with the core rogue would that make it able to class with the unchained rogue as it's not the core rogue that the ninja was based off of? (I don't think so but adding it for completion of related questions)

Can you indicate where you've read that its been officially declared that Alternate Classes can take Archetypes? I don't know if that's been officially clarified.

I don't have the official link handy, but basically everyone says that a ninja can be a scout, and I feel I've probably seen the "official" source at some point. I can potentially go looking for it later, but if someone has it sooner that'd be great! Also if you can't then it's something good to clarify since most* people on the forums believe that you can.

Liberty's Edge

Chess Pwn wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

To clarify I guess I can simplify what I'm asking.

1) Are alternate classes archetypes of their base class?
1.YES)
2) How come some have their own archetypes?
3) Why can't the unchained rogue go ninja for an unchained ninja if it's just an archetype?

1.NO)
2) Why does the ACG say they are?
3) Why can the ninja take rogue archetypes since they aren't listed as ninja archetypes and the other alternate classes have their own archetype list?
4) Whatever the reason for 3, why wouldn't that apply for the unchained rogue?
5) Since it's its own class that can't class with the core rogue would that make it able to class with the unchained rogue as it's not the core rogue that the ninja was based off of? (I don't think so but adding it for completion of related questions)

Can you indicate where you've read that its been officially declared that Alternate Classes can take Archetypes? I don't know if that's been officially clarified.
I don't have the official link handy, but basically everyone says that a ninja can be a scout, and I feel I've probably seen the "official" source at some point. I can potentially go looking for it later, but if someone has it sooner that'd be great! Also if you can't then it's something good to clarify since most* people on the forums believe that you can.

I agree, I'd like official clarification on this as well. And now that Unchained is out, would be a perfect time to indicate whether creating an Unchained Ninja is a possibility or not. And if it isn't, then Alternate classes basically should not be able to take archetypes of their base class. Which means we should probably start seeing some archetypes of the alternate classes get published at some point.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

To clarify I guess I can simplify what I'm asking.

1) Are alternate classes archetypes of their base class?
1.YES)
2) How come some have their own archetypes?
3) Why can't the unchained rogue go ninja for an unchained ninja if it's just an archetype?

I think this first answer is yes, so let's go with this question chain.

2) Some have their own archetype because someone at Paizo had a cool concept which riffed off the antipaladin (which I think is the only one with its own archetype).
3) And the unchained rogue can't go ninja in a PFS game because they've said so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

here's some discussion

here too

another in PFS thread

unofficial James Jacob

Here Jason Bulmahn agrees

The Jason Bulmahn quote I feel is especially good as, if I understand correctly, it was back in the day when Dev posts were "official" and he says it's just an expanded archetype, which leads me to believe that the line in the ACG was intentional, as it's fairly similar meaning. "just expanded archtypes" means it's "technically an archetype"


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

John has specifically stated in the blog comments thread that there is no unchained ninja.

Liberty's Edge

Apocryphile wrote:

John has specifically stated in the blog comments thread that there is no unchained ninja.

For PFS. He does mention that he consulted with the Development team when coming up with that decision.

So I expect, that the answer will eventually be, that Alternate classes cannot take archetypes of the base class.


Apocryphile wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

To clarify I guess I can simplify what I'm asking.

1) Are alternate classes archetypes of their base class?
1.YES)
2) How come some have their own archetypes?
3) Why can't the unchained rogue go ninja for an unchained ninja if it's just an archetype?

I think this first answer is yes, so let's go with this question chain.

2) Some have their own archetype because someone at Paizo had a cool concept which riffed off the antipaladin (which I think is the only one with its own archetype).
3) And the unchained rogue can't go ninja in a PFS game because they've said so.

the samurai has one too making the ninja the only one without a specific archetype.

And while I agree that for now it seems the answers are "Cause we say so" I'd really like to have a more solid and understandable answer. (Mark has said that the Ninja can't go unchained period, and I believe PFS is just following along with that idea. If Paizo said officially it could work then I believe PFS would follow suit.)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The ninja is technically an archetype of rogue, yes, but here's the thing: it does not specify what's changed, but rather specifies the entire class. Since there is no "delta" to apply against the unchained rogue, you cannot (by RAW) make an "unchained ninja".

Further, rogue is rogue, regardless of which book it comes from. You cannot multiclass between ninja and unchained rogue. The intention on that is crystal clear, and attempting to argue otherwise is rules-lawyering of the worst kind.


SCPRedMage wrote:
The ninja is technically an archetype of rogue, yes, but here's the thing: it does not specify what's changed, but rather specifies the entire class.

You can go through the list yourself and figure out the delta. The entire, stated, point of an alternative class that its an archetype with a lot of work on it. You can still see the original serial numbers with a little work.

Quote:
Further, rogue is rogue, regardless of which book it comes from. You cannot multiclass between ninja and unchained rogue. The intention on that is crystal clear, and attempting to argue otherwise is rules-lawyering of the worst kind.

I believe he agrees with that. But the point is that its inconsistent. Either the ninja is a rogue archetype or it is its own separate class. If its an archetype you should be able to make it with unchained. If its its own separate class you should be able to multi class it.

I can see why you would want to not have unchained rogues. The point of unchained is to have the classical, western rogue have a place in the party again. Ninja is a strait out improvement to the regular rogue. At least this way there's a choice to make between Unchained rogue and ninja, rather than unchained ninja being the only real rogue choice.

Saying alternate classes aren't archetypes is against not only Bulmahns posts, the community understanding, and the explicit text. An inconsistancy here would be better than seeing how far down the rabbit hole that goes...


SCPRedMage wrote:

The ninja is technically an archetype of rogue, yes, but here's the thing: it does not specify what's changed, but rather specifies the entire class. Since there is no "delta" to apply against the unchained rogue, you cannot (by RAW) make an "unchained ninja".

Further, rogue is rogue, regardless of which book it comes from. You cannot multiclass between ninja and unchained rogue. The intention on that is crystal clear, and attempting to argue otherwise is rules-lawyering of the worst kind.

if you don't know what's been changed how could you apply other rogue archetypes to it?

Abd the idea us that if the unchanged rogue is different from the original rogue in that it doesn't stack with ninja then why is it the same enough to not multiclass? Again I don't sorry this but that's the idea of it

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
The ninja is technically an archetype of rogue, yes, but here's the thing: it does not specify what's changed, but rather specifies the entire class.
You can go through the list yourself and figure out the delta. The entire, stated, point of an alternative class that its an archetype with a lot of work on it. You can still see the original serial numbers with a little work.

Sure, figuring out the differences isn't difficult. But because it's not written in the "you get X instead of Y" style, and just says "you get X", by RAW you can't apply the ninja "archetype" against any base case; you just get what the ninja alternate class says, barring any archetypes that can modify it. Doing anything else is making up rules where there aren't any.

If you're dealing with a home campaign, I don't see anything wrong with working with your GM to make an "unchained ninja", but in PFS play (which is where this question came from originally) this is not legal.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
if you don't know what's been changed how could you apply other rogue archetypes to it?

Because you can tell they still have the class features that said archetypes are replacing/modifying.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Abd the idea us that if the unchanged rogue is different from the original rogue in that it doesn't stack with ninja then why is it the same enough to not multiclass? Again I don't sorry this but that's the idea of it

You're telling me you think it's possibly legal to multiclass between a class that is explicitly barred from multiclassing with rogue with an updated version of rogue? How is that even remotely a reasonable conclusion?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, it's a PFS houserule?

PFS has houserules, specific to PFS.

I don't think they need to change the current rules, just to accommodate a PFS houserule.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:


You're telling me you think it's possibly legal to multiclass between a class that is explicitly barred from multiclassing with rogue with an updated version of rogue? How is that even remotely a reasonable conclusion?

Its the assumption of perfection. If you assume that the rules make sense and aren't contradictory then any good argument you make in favor of a ruling is right. Of course if the rules don't make sense and or are contradictory then its entirely possible a good argument is wrong.

Either the rogue and unchained rogue are the same class or they're different ones.

If they're the same class then rogue archetypes work.

The ninja is a rogue alternate class

Alternate classes are archetypes

... but the ninja alternate class doesn't work. Therefore the rogue and unchained rogue are different classes. If they're different classes then you can multiclass them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
And the idea is that if the unchanged rogue is different from the original rogue in that it doesn't stack with ninja then why is it the same enough to not multiclass? Again I don't believe this but that's the idea of it. Removed phone typos
You're telling me you think it's possibly legal to multiclass between a class that is explicitly barred from multiclassing with rogue with an updated version of rogue? How is that even remotely a reasonable conclusion?

Every time I've stated this idea I've also stated that I don't believe it to work, but that I included it because someone mentioned it and I figured I'd have a complete list of related questions. Just because I can articulate an idea doesn't mean I support said belief.

Unchained says it can't stack with Core Rogue. Ninja says it is based off Core Rogue and that it can't class with it's base. Unchained rogue is not Core Rogue, And Ninja also is not Core Rogue if it's not an archetype of Core Rogue. Thus being it's own class you'd be allowed to go Unchained Rogue and Ninja.
(Again, Not that I support this view, but it is an interesting point and it relates to the topic, so it's included.)
If Ninja is an archetype then you couldn't multiclass with UCRogue, but you'd be able to make an unchained Ninja.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, it's a PFS houserule?

PFS has houserules, specific to PFS.

I don't think they need to change the current rules, just to accommodate a PFS houserule.

I feel that this is "officially" a PFS houserule. But Mark has brought up in a few threads that the Ninja isn't an archetype of Rogue. And I heard that the PFS leaders talked with the Devs if unchained worked with Ninja. If Mark was the one to tell PFS how Unchained rogue works, then he passes his belief on and PFS thinks it's what the rules are. If PFS and Mark both know that the Ninja is an archetype of Rogue but advocate and rule otherwise, then it's not as much of an issue, but still official clarifications are nice.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think that some of these questions arise from the belief that an alternate class is exactly like an archetype. Whereas it has also been presented as a special kind of archetype with its own specific rules that may differ from the general archetype rules.


Can anybody provide the link to the PFS ruling here? It would be helpful for future searchers landing on this thread to be able to find the actual ruling. (I haven't found the post yet.)


Gwen Smith wrote:
Can anybody provide the link to the PFS ruling here? It would be helpful for future searchers landing on this thread to be able to find the actual ruling. (I haven't found the post yet.)

No unchained ninjas in pfs

Mark saying they're not archetypes


KingOfAnything wrote:
I think that some of these questions arise from the belief that an alternate class is exactly like an archetype.

which was said by two developers and explicitly stated in the text.

Quote:
Whereas it has also been presented as a special kind of archetype with its own specific rules that may differ from the general archetype rules.

But as none of those special rules are said anywhere, it functions exactly as an archetype.


Ninjas can't multiclass with rogues and I'm guessing they won't be able to multiclass with Unchained rogues if that hasn't actually been settled somewhere already. There have never been any great options for rogue archetypes you can apply to a ninja. Aside from a few interesting ninja tricks that have been scattered among various books it seems like the ninja was an alternate class that has been largely ignored since it was created. It's a shame because it's an interesting class but it feels like it becomes more irrelevant with every publication because it simply doesn't have the same customization options as other classes. I have to admit I feel so starved for creative play options for a ninja that if Paizo put out a Player Companion dedicated to ninja archetypes and tricks I'd probably buy it.


I'm a little confused now as to whether there's been an official statement given or whether it's still under debate.

1. Are alternate classes no longer considered archetypes?

2. Does this mean combinations like Ninja Scout are not considered legal?

3. Also does that mean that there are no Racial Favored Class Options for them?

I'm just trying to make sure my PFS character remains "legal". Though the GMs in my local games are pretty laid back in these matters, I don't want to play my character at a convention to be told that I've made an illegal character.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Dulcee wrote:

I'm a little confused now as to whether there's been an official statement given or whether it's still under debate.

1. Are alternate classes no longer considered archetypes?

2. Does this mean combinations like Ninja Scout are not considered legal?

3. Also does that mean that there are no Racial Favored Class Options for them?

I'm just trying to make sure my PFS character remains "legal". Though the GMs in my local games are pretty laid back in these matters, I don't want to play my character at a convention to be told that I've made an illegal character.

These are some of the questions I'm hoping to have answered. And right now it's unclear what is "legal"

In the links I gave James and Jason, a long time ago, both said that they are just archetypes. And the ACG says they are archetypes, which is a pretty new source. But Mark says that they aren't archetypes, and that they never were, and, as I understand, PFS talked with Paizo and determined that the Ninja couldn't be unchained (the same view Mark has). We don't know if this is their understanding of what Paizo said, or their own houserule to make rogues cool.

All leading up to this thread being created. Please add your FAQ to help get this answered.

EDIT: I'm a little sad that for all the rulings, recent questions, and opposing views about this, there are very few FAQs for it. :(


Chess, i have cheese sandwhiches that have been around longer than this has been contested. Give it some time.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I don't see Mark explicitly saying they are not archetypes.

He says alternate classes "play by their own rules".

Did I miss something?

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, BNW, you should probably refrigerate those sandwiches.


The likely main reason they don't want to allow Ninja to gain the benefits of the Unchained Rogue is balance between the two classes.

The Ninja used to be "just better" than the Rogue, with Archetypes being the main reason why the Rogue would be taken over the Ninja.

Now that the Unchained Rogue has completely replaced the Original Rogue, the Rogue and Ninja are on equal footing (much like the Paladin vs Antipaladin & Cavalier vs Samurai).

But if Alternate Classes are "Super-Archetypes" like they have been in the past, then you have the question of potentially applying the Unchained Rogue changes the Ninja.

And if you allow the Ninja all the new tricks that the Rogue now has, then you wind up right back where we were before - while the Rogue is good, the Ninja is "just better", which basically invalidates the entire reason to have the Rogue in the first place.

Since Alternate Classes already have very little to no access to their parent Class's archetypes, it's both easier and more balanced to simply say "they're not Archetypes, they're full-on Alternate Classes".

They may have also done this in preparation for Occult Adventures.

Three of the Classes in that book - the Mesmerist, the Psychic, and the Spiritualist - are (probably) Alternate Classes of the Bard, Sorcerer, and Summoner respectively. But they're so radically different that trying to mesh Archetypes with them would create rules nightmares, so Paizo may just go "yeah, no, Alternate Classes are simply completely-separate Base Classes that can't be combined with their originals or Archetypes therein"

And then there's the possibility that they plan on creating unique Archetypes for the Alternate Classes in the Occult Adventures forward, to give them tricks of their own that the original classes don't have.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess, i have cheese sandwhiches that have been around longer than this has been contested. Give it some time.

Why are you making sandwiches if you're not going to eat them right away?

Silver Crusade Contributor

Maybe they're for a packed lunch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't judge me! :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If the cheese sandwiches are not bad, as in, not hard or moldy, then grill them in a cast iron pan, with a light layer of bacon grease in the pan.

Grilled cheese sandwiches, cooked in bacon grease, are just awesome.

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I don't see Mark explicitly saying they are not archetypes.

He says alternate classes "play by their own rules".

Did I miss something?

Yes. They should've linked this post instead.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is this going to change combinations, such as Scout/Ninja?

Will Ninjas no longer be able to count as Rogues, for the purposes of feats, and abilities?

I don't think I fully understand what this changes, for those who will never use the Unchained book.

Dark Archive

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Is this going to change combinations, such as Scout/Ninja?

Will Ninjas no longer be able to count as Rogues, for the purposes of feats, and abilities?

Likely, but maybe not. We'll see.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I don't think I fully understand what this changes, for those who will never use the Unchained book.

Depending on how much they change archetypes, it might change almost nothing, or lots of stuff.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
SCPRedMage wrote:

Sure, figuring out the differences isn't difficult. But because it's not written in the "you get X instead of Y" style, and just says "you get X", by RAW you can't apply the ninja "archetype" against any base case; you just get what the ninja alternate class says, barring any archetypes that can modify it. Doing anything else is making up rules where there aren't any.

If you're dealing with a home campaign, I don't see anything wrong with working with your GM to make an "unchained ninja", but in PFS play (which is where this question came from originally) this is not legal.

I just made an unchained ninja in the house rule section, and you're right, it was simple.

I think chbgraphicarts has hit the nail on the head, in that the ninja was introduced to bring the rogue up a bit without re doing the whole class. Now we have the unchained rogue, it's more on the same level with ninja.

As for whether they'll 'unhitch' ninja from the unchained rogue, who knows!


SCPRedMage wrote:


Sure, figuring out the differences isn't difficult. But because it's not written in the "you get X instead of Y" style, and just says "you get X", by RAW you can't apply the ninja "archetype" against any base case; you just get what the ninja alternate class says

The style that its written in is completely irrelevant. You have the exact same information either way. The texts for alternate classes explicitly say that they are just archtypes and could easily be written that way, and function that way.

Quote:
barring any archetypes that can modify it. Doing anything else is making up rules where there aren't any.

That's the thing. Some of the paizofolk seem to be saying you can't put an archetype on an alternate class. THAT would be making up rules where there aren't any and changing rules that specifically exist.

Quote:
I don't see anything wrong with working with your GM to make an "unchained ninja"

There's no subjectivity. The unchained ninja simply drops out of the two classes like a slightly annoying f (x) problem. The unchained rogue even has language in it specifically to allow it to be archetyped.

Quote:
but in PFS play (which is where this question came from originally) this is not legal.

I know. I'm the one that originally asked the question. I was pretty sure they didn't want an unchained ninja but the rules they had listed allowed for one.

I'm fine with the answer "no unchained ninjas in pfs".

but a few of the follow up responses seemed to indicate that some of the paizo folks were operating under the assumption that you couldn't archetype an alternate class/ Chess has done a good job of linking why people think that works the other way.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Darkholme wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Is this going to change combinations, such as Scout/Ninja?

Will Ninjas no longer be able to count as Rogues, for the purposes of feats, and abilities?

Likely, but maybe not. We'll see.

This is a huge pain in the @ss.


Here are some links to Mark's statements
one
two

Okay I swear I had this topic brought up before with Mark saying similar to what he's saying now. And I feel I used the ACG quote in that discussion, but after spending 30 minutes I can't find it.

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alternate Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.