And Jason's comment is unofficial and Mark stated that his comment about unchained rogues was to be official.
So with the now new official stance that they aren't just considered big archetypes that throws all that we considered true out with it.And I suppose the advanced class guide was unofficial too? Come off it.
There is no new official stance, at all, after the old one was allegedly tossed 2 and a half years ago. Has the part of the book that point blank says they're archetypes even been taken out yet? Do they know in what way a ninja is or is not a rogue?
You're going well past its on shaky ground now and seem to be trying to argue that it was never the case, a reversal of your previous position.
No, the ACG isn't official when we have official comment saying it's supposed to be removed and not exist there.
I'm sorry if my argument is unclear. But yes, before the unchanged rogue and them clarifying that it's not an archetype and that they plan to remove that line from the ACG it was accepted that alternate classes are just big archetypes, that's why the freelancer that wrote the guide to creating archetypes put that line in the book to begin with, cause that was the view we all knew.
But once unchained hit and them withdrawing that as true we're left with what's actually written and not set for errata and nothing in that written material would allow for such a thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a reversal by Paizo, plain and simple.
We know it's true. The Developers know it's true.
This change benefits Paizo, since they can sell new material.
It frustrates players, who appreciate honesty and consistency.
Debating it does us no good. Just file it away as either a mark against Pathfinder and/or Paizo and determine how many marks it takes to move on.
. But yes, before the unchanged rogue and them clarifying that it's not an archetype and that they plan to remove that line from the ACG it was accepted that alternate classes are just big archetypes
It wasn't "Accepted". It was. This is not a point of view thing.
. But yes, before the unchanged rogue and them clarifying that it's not an archetype and that they plan to remove that line from the ACG it was accepted that alternate classes are just big archetypes
It wasn't "Accepted". It was. This is not a point of view thing.
I'm not trying to disagree with your point, just explaining my rational for my word choice.
The only thing for that was an unofficial DEV comment. That's hardly something hard and solid to say "IT WAS".Like it was accepted that a +3 bow would let arrows bypass cold iron DR. Everyone did it, but apparently that's not how the rules were written, so the clarification was to follow the rules.
The only thing for that was an unofficial DEV comment.
Absolutely 100% not true. There were (arguably, are) words in a book, a hardcover no less, that say the exact same thing as the allegedly unofficial developer comment. They do not get removed from the time stream once errata'd, much less once a (somehow more official than the other developers post) slates it for removal.
So yes. The book said that's how it worked. The dev in charge said that's how it worked. There isn't any more than that to be had. That warrants as much james earl jones as i can font into the "it was".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing for that was an unofficial DEV comment.
Absolutely 100% not true. There were (arguably, are) words in a book, a hardcover no less, that say the exact same thing as the allegedly unofficial developer comment. They do not get removed from the time stream once errata'd, much less once a (somehow more official than the other developers post) slates it for removal.
So yes. The book said that's how it worked. The dev in charge said that's how it worked. There isn't any more than that to be had. That warrants as much james earl jones as i can font into the "it was".
Jason's post is unofficial per all dev posts being unofficial
Mark said that his comments about the unchained rogue and ninja stuff should be viewed as official as it had the backing of the entire PDT.The part in the book about archetypes wasn't written by the PDT and as seen by all the other junk missed in the release of the ACG was something that wasn't caught in the review of the book. So a comment saying this should be treated as official saying it's to be removed cause it's not true.
So the timeline is,
Jason's comment that everyone accepted
some freelancer believing that comment of Jason writes it in the book.
The DEVs become aware of the incorrect line and state it'll be removed for being false.
We can see errors like this in lots of stuff, undead anti-paladins gettings CHA to saves twice breaking the no double dipping FAQ for example, just because it got into a book doesn't mean it was supposed to be in there that way.
I don't understand why you feel the need to argue this point. We both agree that everyone was okay putting rogue archetypes on ninja's before unchained. I've now explained twice why I feel my words are the ones I want to use, I don't see what you gain from trying to convince me that I need to use different words.
We can see errors like this in lots of stuff, undead anti-paladins gettings CHA to saves twice breaking the no double dipping FAQ for example, just because it got into a book doesn't mean it was supposed to be in there that way.
This isn't someone getting the math wrong when making a character. This is "what the hecks an alternate class" with a direct answer from two different sources saying the same thing.
I don't understand why you feel the need to argue this point. We both agree that everyone was okay putting rogue archetypes on ninja's before unchained. I've now explained twice why I feel my words are the ones I want to use, I don't see what you gain from trying to convince me that I need to use different words.
You're putting the blame for the kerfufle over this one on the community for not reading the real rules correctly at levels that surpass parody, as if we should have reached the opposite conclusion.. somehow. By playing a didgeridoo and consulting the Akashic record apparently, because none of the direct statements about how it worked were reliable.
To justify that, you're tap dancing between whats official and whats not in an inconsistent manor with no rhyme or reason beyond what supports your current point or doesn't.
You're putting the blame for the kerfufle over this one on the community for not reading the real rules correctly at levels that surpass parody, as if we should have reached the opposite conclusion.. somehow. By playing a didgeridoo and consulting the Akashic record apparently, because none of the direct statements about how it worked were reliable.
To justify that, you're tap dancing between whats official and whats not in an inconsistent manor with no rhyme or reason beyond what supports your current point or doesn't.
No, I'm not putting the blame on the community. I believe it was a development shift that they wanted and just got lucky that the text already said what they wanted to go with and just reinforced that that's the correct way to handle it.
Two examples offhand that I feel also follow this are Bows and arrows FAQ, and the special materials and sizing FAQ. Neither had to create "new rules" like the no stat twice faq had to or take away something they had granted like the SLA are spells FAQ. I think there's been a fairly significant change in the direction/view of where the "DEVs?" want the game to be and we're seeing that as they address issues that significantly alter the accepted way to play.
Like as a counter example, shield master was accepted to just negate the TWF penalties, then the FAQ reinforced the accepted way by altering the text to match that view. We all would have been just as thrown off by them saying that the text has technically been correct the entire time and that they are sticking with it removing any and all penalties.
What's accepted is what the game is since that's how people play it, even if it runs contrary to some of the "rules" found in the game. So when a clarification or official statement is made contrary to that the "blame" is still on the DEVs, they are changing the game even if just by telling us to actually follow the written rules of the game.
No, I'm not putting the blame on the community. I believe it was a development shift that they wanted and just got lucky that the text already said what they wanted to go with and just reinforced that that's the correct way to handle it.
What text are you talking about? Nothing went against the idea of alternate classes being archetypes. At all. This is the "we've always been at war with east asia" stuff which, if it's not clear, annoys me a lot more than the actual change.
Two examples offhand that I feel also follow this are Bows and arrows FAQ, and the special materials and sizing FAQ. Neither had to create "new rules"
Materials and sizing did not (Completely nonsensical, but not against the rules). The bow faq had to ignore a couple of lines about treating the ammunition like a magic weapon.
like the no stat twice faq had to
The FAQ absolutely 100% did not do that. The faq clearing up the vague term of source and could have gotten the exact same functional answer accepting that *gasp* a strength bonus is a bonus, but the arguments against double dipping were all over the place and they were made within the rules. The absurdly overpowered results you got when you allowed double dipping was an extreme warning sign to take the other path, but that other path was always there. Source was vague, and the arguments for stacking a strength bonus with a strength bonus were rules lawyery as hell.
The more munchkiny sections of the rules forum were warned ad nauseum that their logic was questionable and wasn't going to hold up.
or take away something they had granted like the SLA are spells FAQ.
At least that's an admitted change...
I think there's been a fairly significant change in the direction/view of where the "DEVs?" want the game to be and we're seeing that as they address issues that significantly alter the accepted way to play.
It looks like they're trying to go back to the exact wording and trying to treat the game as if it were consistent unless that will absolutely break the game. Which i think is a bad idea because you can get vastly different results playing logic plinko depending on your starting point.
What's accepted is what the game is since that's how people play it, even if it runs contrary to some of the "rules" found in the game.
Alternate classes as archetypes was not a "rule". It was a rule. Black and white, clear as crystal. Objectively stated in multiple, official sources. I know it's a fantasy game, but the reality of the ink on paper has to kick in at some point.
The fact that alternate classes all have their own Archetypes kinda kills the notion that they themselves are still Archetypes of the parent class and that you can take their Archetypes as well.
1 they re not mutually exclusive
2 ninjas didnt start getting archetypes until after the paradigm change
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that alternate classes all have their own Archetypes kinda kills the notion that they themselves are still Archetypes of the parent class and that you can take their Archetypes as well.1 they re not mutually exclusive
2 ninjas didnt start getting archetypes until after the paradigm change
1) they are since you can't replace an archetyp's abilities with another archetype.
2) no but we've had Antipaladin and Samurai archetypes for awhile now.
The fact that alternate classes all have their own Archetypes kinda kills the notion that they themselves are still Archetypes of the parent class and that you can take their Archetypes as well.
A good argument does not contradict a direct statement.
In a perfectly coherent, logical system a perfect logician could start at a known point and soundly and validly argue to an end point.
Pathfinder is not that system. Pathfinder is so far from being that system that the triune god of the drift looks at the distance and says "...you want to go HOW FAR?"
Despite what some fans might say, this is not paizo's fault. I don't know if such a system is even possible at all. I highly doubt it could ever be done in english. I don't expect a gaming company to solve a problem that's plauged philosophers for a thousand years*
... but you have to deal with the system as it is. Not as you wish it was.
2) no but we've had Antipaladin and Samurai archetypes for awhile now.
But even with that this is not a good argument
That you, the player, cannot double trade out an archetype is not the same thing that a general you (paizo in this case) cannot double archetype. One is swapping a dinobot for a rainbow pony and then despite having already traded it, swapping it out again for a Gi joe tank. The other says that you can trade the dinobot for a rainbow pony which you can trade for a gi joe tank. They're not the same thing.
*yet. give em 50 years. This "i don't like philosophers joke brought to you by "caffine"
1) You made an argument that alternate classes aren't archetypes because ____ reasons. Even with a good argument this doesn't work because you can make a lot of good arguments for things that aren't true. The argument gets trumped by direct statements that the archetypes are alternate classes.
2) The rule you're citing simply doesn't exist. It does not say what you need it to say in this context.
|
|
1) They aren't archetypes because they get archetypes. They may have been considered archetypes at one point in time but they moment they got their own archetypes that path got closed.
2) I'm not citing a rule, you're the one claiming archetypes can take archetypes. They may have been considered Archetypes when they were first introduced but Paizo decided "on second thought, they get their own archetypes".
1) They aren't archetypes because they get archetypes. They may have been considered archetypes at one point in time but they moment they got their own archetypes that path got closed.
Why does getting an archetype preclude them from being archetypes? (or functioning according to all the rules of one)
2) I'm not citing a rule, you're the one claiming archetypes can take archetypes.
You are claiming that they cannot. Your logic relies on the idea that an archetype cannot have an archetype. The rule you're citing, that you can't trade out the same thing for two things, is different and does not apply here.
This is a semantics nightmare. It seems way more confusing then it need be. Has the developers not directly clarified this issue?
|
|
1) They aren't archetypes because they get archetypes. They may have been considered archetypes at one point in time but they moment they got their own archetypes that path got closed.Why does getting an archetype preclude them from being archetypes? (or functioning according to all the rules of one)
2) I'm not citing a rule, you're the one claiming archetypes can take archetypes.You are claiming that they cannot. Your logic relies on the idea that an archetype cannot have an archetype. The rule you're citing, that you can't trade out the same thing for two things, is different and does not apply here.
If you're claiming they're just archetypes and not classes unto themselves then the can't replace rule does come into effect and the alternate classes would not be able to take their own archetypes since since those archetypes replaces features that were replaced on the "parent" class. And Paizo not published anything stating that archetypes can take an archetype.
But I'm pretty sure you can take multiple archetypes.
So I guess the argument is whether the ninja is considered an archetype or something else?
Eh I would probably allow it in my home games.
I still don't see any reason you couldn't have an archetype of an archetype.
E.g., an archetype of Zen Archer monk that replaces their "Point Blank Master" ability (which replaced the "Still Mind" ability of the base monk).
I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. However they are on the rules forum so I think they have to be particularly precise about it.
If you're claiming they're just archetypes and not classes unto themselves then the can't replace rule does come into effect
I have already explained 3 times why this is not the case. You are not listening.
The rule you're citing, that you can't trade out the same thing for two things, is different and does not apply here.
That you, the player, cannot double trade out an archetype is not the same thing that a general you (paizo in this case) cannot double archetype. One is swapping a dinobot for a rainbow pony and then despite having already traded it, swapping it out again for a Gi joe tank. The other says that you can trade the dinobot for a rainbow pony which you can trade for a gi joe tank. They're not the same thing.
) The rule you're citing simply doesn't exist. It does not say what you need it to say in this context.
Furthermore, what you're at best arguing is a rules contradiction. Which you want to resolve by saying "I have an argument, so the text must be wrong" ... that's a very unlikely result.
|
|
No, you're the one trying to insist a rules exists when there isn't one. You're claiming that these are special archetypes that ignore the normal rules for archetype stacking and overlap when nothing in the books suggests this is a thing.
"That you, the player, cannot double trade out an archetype is not the same thing that a general you (paizo in this case) cannot double archetype."
You need to point out where this is actually written out and not just something you're assuming, because until then there's not really any point to this and we're just going round and round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you're the one trying to insist a rules exists when there isn't one. You're claiming that these are special archetypes that ignore the normal rules for archetype stacking and overlap when nothing in the books suggests this is a thing.
"That you, the player, cannot double trade out an archetype is not the same thing that a general you (paizo in this case) cannot double archetype."
You need to point out where this is actually written out and not just something you're assuming, because until then there's not really any point to this and we're just going round and round.
Actually, the rules only state you can't have two archetypes trading the same thing.
If A trades out B and give C.Nothing in the rules says you can't have an archetype that trades out C.
But that would be weird since most archetypes only affect the class itself. Nothing forbids it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you're the one trying to insist a rules exists when there isn't one. You're claiming that these are special archetypes that ignore the normal rules for archetype stacking and overlap when nothing in the books suggests this is a thing.
I am absolutely not doing that.
I am arguing that a ninja can take the scout archetype because
1) a ninja is a rogue
2) ninja is a rogue with a really big archetype
3) the rogue with the really big archetype has not traded out what the scout requires that you trade out.
I am not arguing that the ninja could take the Carnivalist archetype, which requires trap sense, which the rogue has already traded out to become a ninja. THAT's what there's a rule against.
You're arguing that that means that paizo couldn't archetype an archetype and that simply is not the same thing, at all.
No, you're the one trying to insist a rules exists when there isn't one. You're claiming that these are special archetypes that ignore the normal rules for archetype stacking and overlap when nothing in the books suggests this is a thing.I am absolutely not doing that.
I am arguing that a ninja can take the scout archetype because
1) a ninja is a rogue
2) ninja is a rogue with a really big archetype
3) the rogue with the really big archetype has not traded out what the scout requires that you trade out.I am not arguing that the ninja could take the Carnivalist archetype, which requires trap sense, which the rogue has already traded out to become a ninja. THAT's what there's a rule against.
You're arguing that that means that paizo couldn't archetype an archetype and that simply is not the same thing, at all.
The ninja is not a rogue
the ninja is not a big archetype of roguerogue archetypes are for rogues and not for other classes that happen to have the features that are traded out.
No, you're the one trying to insist a rules exists when there isn't one. You're claiming that these are special archetypes that ignore the normal rules for archetype stacking and overlap when nothing in the books suggests this is a thing.
"That you, the player, cannot double trade out an archetype is not the same thing that a general you (paizo in this case) cannot double archetype."
You need to point out where this is actually written out and not just something you're assuming, because until then there's not really any point to this and we're just going round and round.
Actually, the rules only state you can't have two archetypes trading the same thing.
If A trades out B and give C.
Nothing in the rules says you can't have an archetype that trades out C.But that would be weird since most archetypes only affect the class itself. Nothing forbids it though.
Well…
Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype either replaces or alters one or more specific class features from the base class.
If you have an archetype that trades out B for C, then you can't have another archetype that trades out C for D because C came from the first archetype and therefore isn't a "specific class features from the base class."
So an archetype can't replace features from other archetypes - only those from the base class.
Since alternate classes are not base classes, by that logic neither ninja archetypes nor antipaladin archetypes should be able to exist, yet they do.
I don't understand where anyone would think an Unchained Rogue could become a Ninja in the first place. The Ninja doesn't state anywhere what abilities it is replacing of the Rogue's with new abilities. So you don't have any rules to say what changes what with the Unchained Rogue. So I don't see any rules that allow someone to start thinking it was possible.An alternate class is just a really big archetype. It is not replacing the base class. Thats the entire point of the quote swarm.
Unchained versions can take archetypes of the chained version
Combining two alternate classes should normally be impossible for the obvious reason that neither one states what is replaced, so you cannot be sure exactly what abilities a combination of two alternate classes would have.
However, it is theoretically possible to build an "Unchained Ninja" by taking a Ninja and adding to it every ability that an Unchained Rogue gets that a standard Rogue doesn't. That works only because the changes from standard Rogue to Unchained Rogue are almost purely additions -- but it is definitely not in accordance with rules as written.
So an archetype can't replace features from other archetypes - only those from the base class.Since alternate classes are not base classes, by that logic neither ninja archetypes nor antipaladin archetypes should be able to exist, yet they do.
This is the point that Mark Seifter addressed in the post that you linked to earlier.
Alternate classes play by their own rules. Otherwise, knight of the sepulcher wouldn't be able to exist, since it alters or replaces abilities that alter or replace paladin abilities.
My opinion is that the specific rules for Alternate Classes override the general archetype rules that I cited in my response to Starbuck_II.
From an earlier post by Chess Pwn…
An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class—a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa.
So even though an Alternate Class is not a Base Class, it operates as one and so can have archetypes that replace or alter its class features. For those archetypes, the Alternate Class counts as the Base Class even though some of the Alternate Class features may have replaced features from the Associated Class. As Mark said, they play by their own rules.
|
If each class only ever has one alternate class, then modeling them as really big archetypes works, even if they are not actually archetypes.
Once the rogue got two alternate classes, it was necessary to clarify that you can't stack two really big archetypes with each other. Really big archetypes still stack with small archetypes normally.
Combining two alternate classes should normally be impossible for the obvious reason that neither one states what is replaced, so you cannot be sure exactly what abilities a combination of two alternate classes would have.
I have no idea why people keep saying this. It is absolutely, 100 % objectively false.
If I have an option to swap x for y, it absolutely doesn't matter what A, z, B and Q did. At all. I have x, i can swap x for y.
Gisher, Okay, so if it opperates exactly as a base class and a base class can take archetypes then whats the problem?
There's no logic here that goes against a ninja scout. Quite the opposite.
Gisher, Okay, so if it opperates exactly as a base class and a base class can take archetypes then whats the problem?
There's no logic here that goes against a ninja scout. Quite the opposite.
The logic is that a barbarian can't take a rogue archetype that replaces uncanny dodge, cause it's it's own class.
Ninja's are their own class, and as such can't take rogue archetypes that they happen to qualify for.So ninja's are free to take ninja archetypes, but they can't take barb or rogue archetypes that they qualify for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So ninjas can multiclass with rogues now, then? Since it's unofficially no longer an alternate class?
Combining two alternate classes should normally be impossible for the obvious reason that neither one states what is replaced, so you cannot be sure exactly what abilities a combination of two alternate classes would have.I have no idea why people keep saying this. It is absolutely, 100 % objectively false.
If I have an option to swap x for y, it absolutely doesn't matter what A, z, B and Q did. At all. I have x, i can swap x for y.
But the Ninja alternate class does not define any swap options at all -- it just gives you what you have post-swap. If there were another alternate Rogue class other than Unchained Rogue that was written up the same way, it could be a challenging task to work out exactly what the Ninja and the other hypothetical alternate class each gave up to get what they each end up with.
The Ninja/Unchained Rogue alternate class combination can be made to work because you can easily figure out that one of the alternate classes (in this case, the Unchained Rogue) gives up absolutely no standard rogue abilities and thus you need only identify and add onto the Ninja chassis the additional abilities granted to the Unchained Rogue. However, you cannot count on any future alternate classes being that simple.
So ninjas can multiclass with rogues now, then? Since it's unofficially no longer an alternate class?
What made you think this. They are officially and "unofficially?" an alternate class. What that means is that they are the same as a base class, cavalier and oracle, but that they can't take levels in a certain class aka their associated class.
So they have their own archetypes and stuff, like a base class, but the thing that makes them an alternate class is having a class they can't take.
All it would take to turn an oracle from a base to an alternate is slap on the restriction that it can't take levels from its "associated" cleric class.
But the Ninja alternate class does not define any swap options at all -- it just gives you what you have post-swap.
so what? With regards to taking an archetype thats all you need. If i have an option to trade the dinobot for the raibow pony i don't care what I or the other guy in the warehouse did with the stuff in the black box. Its completely irrelevant.
With regards to the chained rogue doesn't have anything that the unchained one doesn't. So whatever the exact arangement is the unchained rogue can fullfill it. It doesn't matter if uncanny dodge was traded for ninja tricks or a raspberry treacle tart. It's gone and i have ninja tricks.
I absolutely realize that may not work for every class: the unchained summoner for example breaks chained class archetypes.
With that said, I realize that the unchained ninja is a bad idea. Both were made as straight upgrades to the rogue. But the solution is "no unchained ninja" not Trying to turn the rules inside out so that the unchained ninja doesn't exist by the rules.
This would all be easier if more people understood Inheritance and Polymorphism.
This would all be easier if more people understood Inheritance and Polymorphism.
Druids aren't really the kind that care about getting a lot of material goods from dead parents.
|
|
There are Ninja archetypes? (Paizo, I mean.)They haven't bothered actually issuing that errata they mentioned years ago. they are still archetypes of their parent class until they bother to do something they have had years to do.They've released archetypes of their own.
I believe Villain Codex has one.
there are two Hunting Serpent in villain codex and Frozen Shadow in inner sea intrigue