Do archetypes that both alter class skills stack?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mad Coil wrote:
I appear to have started something horrible. I do apologize for my question.

Seeking knowledge isn't a bad thing, and if you are asking it that means others are considering the same thing and just haven't asked yet.

If there is going to be confusion on this point they need to know now.

I think the idea that somehow they would change this to any alteration to a subfeature means an alteration to the feature and kills archetype mixing would be a horrible choice, as so many of their archetypes are just... well not good especially if you can't match them with other archetypes.

They are almost subarchetypes, or archetypelets or something else that means a smaller less significant version of an archetype.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mad Coil wrote:
I appear to have started something horrible. I do apologize for my question.

You monster. ^_^

Silver Crusade Contributor

In all seriousness, I'm hoping that Herolab doesn't patch according to this FAQ. (They haven't done so for Eldritch Heritage/Wildblooded, so I'm cautiously optimistic.)

I'm really starting to have concerns about clicking FAQ, though... it seems like they never make anyone happier. This one in particular bothers me a lot, since (as I mentioned earlier) I really like combining archetypes and other options to match my exact character concept. The Wildblooded/Crossblooded/EH one was similar for me.

I'm guessing (hoping?) it's not as bad as it seems, and that there are a lot of archetypes that still stack. I'm almost afraid to check...


That seems about right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Guys, those of you attempting to bend the ruling on subfeatures to have it apply to class skills and bonus feats are treading on dangerous ground. Part of getting agreement from the whole PDT to codify the subfeatures thing in the FAQ (previously it only existed in an Ask JJ thread, even though a fair number of people, myself included [you can even see old threads with Rogue Eidolon on them] wanted it to be the answer) was that I promised "No one will think this opens the door to a slippery slope. It's clear-cut that this only applies to things like deeds and bardic performance with a bunch of additional abilities listed on the 1-20 character chart." If I'm wrong and you guys keep at it, it's not impossible we'll see a retraction to disallow subfeatures within bardic performance, etc.

welp this is going downhill fast.

not being able to stack something that replaces weapon training 1 and something that replaces weapon training 2 would definitely be weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

Ok, just making sure I've got this right.

Archetypes that alter class features with subfeatures like say Bloodline Powers, can be stacked as long as no two replace the same the level of Bloodline Power.

Example:

The Sage Wildblooded Archetyped trades out the level 1 Bloodline power, while the Razmiran Archetype trades out the 9th. Because these are subfeatures of the Bloodline Power class feature, they can be traded out ala "In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures."

Correct?

With the new clarification, this has become an absolute yes.

Bloodline powers are separated into subfeatures with italic headlines, so they absolutely can stack with multiple archetypes that trade out specific powers.


The FAQ is actually very clear on what is and isn't allowed. What wasn't clear, by my reading, is what each of those things is defined as. Mark did clarify it in his most recent post, but I think that should be added to something, maybe the FAQ itself, to reduce confusion.

Basically, an archetype modifies features and subfeatures. For example, "bonus feats" is a feature, and "the bonus feat gained at first level" is a subfeature. "Deeds" is a feature, and "precise strike" is a subfeature. For the purposes of archetypes, you also treat class skills as an entire feature, and modifying the class skills from one archetype preclude other archetypes that also modify class skills.

You can take two archetypes that modify two separate subfeatures. For example, if you had one archetype that replaced your level 3 magus arcana and one archetype that replaced your level 6 magus arcana, it would be compatible. However, neither are compatible with an archetype that changes the list of possible arcana that you can take. Essentially, the only "meshing" of the same class feature between archetypes that is allowed is when two separate subfeatures are modified.

However, again, I would prefer if the exact definition of a "subfeature" were clarified. I think what mark wrote works pretty well:

Quote:
1) If you have a class feature that is broken into separate features with their names in italics (like bardic performance) or that are gained at multiple levels on the character chart (like weapon training), you can alter those child features separately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definition of terms and consistent use of those definitions is something that Paizo definitely has trouble with. This FAQ is a prime example. We have Class Features to be somewhat defined, with Class Skills distinctly outside of Class Features, except that this FAQ includes Class Skills as a part of Class Features (where Class Skills are not a part of Class Features elsewhere, like in the event where a Paladin falls and loses the Class Features). Likewise, we have Class Subfeatures, which is not defined anywhere official, but it is used officially here in this FAQ.

And this lack of defined terms with a lose use of them throughout the Rulebooks has caused confusion. The FAQ to helps with clarification then causes more confusion, also due to the lack of precise definitions, and then those of us who try to understand it are then shamed for trying to "bend the rules," when all we're doing is trying to understand what the heck is going on.

Frankly, the shaming is flatly unprofessional. I would absolutely be appalled of anyone in my line of work did this and I would take them aside for a private conversation to let them know about their lack of professionalism. You should never shame someone for trying to understand something or for trying to work within a set of specified guidelines.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Guys, those of you attempting to bend the ruling on subfeatures to have it apply to class skills and bonus feats are treading on dangerous ground. Part of getting agreement from the whole PDT to codify the subfeatures thing in the FAQ (previously it only existed in an Ask JJ thread, even though a fair number of people, myself included [you can even see old threads with Rogue Eidolon on them] wanted it to be the answer) was that I promised "No one will think this opens the door to a slippery slope. It's clear-cut that this only applies to things like deeds and bardic performance with a bunch of additional abilities listed on the 1-20 character chart." If I'm wrong and you guys keep at it, it's not impossible we'll see a retraction to disallow subfeatures within bardic performance, etc.

Mark people reading rules how they want to read them is not new here. I am starting not to expect much better from certain posters, but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.


bookrat wrote:

Definition of terms and consistent use of those definitions is something that Paizo definitely has trouble with. This FAQ is a prime example. We have Class Features to be somewhat defined, with Class Skills distinctly outside of Class Features, except that this FAQ includes Class Skills as a part of Class Features (where Class Skills are not a part of Class Features elsewhere, like in the event where a Paladin falls and loses the Class Features). Likewise, we have Class Subfeatures, which is not defined anywhere official, but it is used officially here in this FAQ.

And this lack of defined terms with a lose use of them throughout the Rulebooks has caused confusion. The FAQ to helps with clarification then causes more confusion, also due to the lack of precise definitions, and then those of us who try to understand it are then shamed for trying to "bend the rules," when all we're doing is trying to understand what the heck is going on.

Frankly, the shaming is flatly unprofessional. I would absolutely be appalled of anyone in my line of work did this and I would take them aside for a private conversation to let them know about their lack of professionalism. You should never shame someone for trying to understand something or for trying to work within a set of specified guidelines.

I agree. If the archetypes are going to also include class skills which they obviously do as blocking agents, then either the rule should say class features and class skills or there needs to be errata to say the class skills are class features. Personally I dont mind the ruling, but I do mind that what the book says, and what the ruling is do not match up.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I'm hoping that Herolab doesn't patch according to this FAQ.

I'm really starting to have concerns about clicking FAQ, though... it seems like they never make anyone happier.

I'd expect a Herolab patch, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

As for hoping people don't click FAQ. No matter what they say in a FAQ, knowing how the rules work is better than being in the dark and continually being in situations where you don't know if you are the GM are right. If you can persuade the GM to your world view, he can always rule 0 it your way anyway.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:
either the rule should say class features and class skills or there needs to be errata to say the class skills are class features.

In this thread, they clarified that they are not class features but that they are considered class features for the purpose of stacking archetypes. Because when the archetype stacking rules were written, archetypes only modified class features. But during the development of archetypes they because to modify non-class features like class skills.

Make more sense?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

they could have made the faq specific to class skills. Instead of writing down a rule and then insinuating class skills fall under that.


James Risner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
either the rule should say class features and class skills or there needs to be errata to say the class skills are class features.

In this thread, they clarified that they are not class features but that they are considered class features for the purpose of stacking archetypes. Because when the archetype stacking rules were written, archetypes only modified class features. But during the development of archetypes they because to modify non-class features like class skills.

Make more sense?

I understand how it works, but the FAQ nor the book says that and people should be able to read the book and/or the FAQ to get the full information.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
they could have made the faq specific to class skills.

I think they are trying to be broad on the FAQ so they don't end up with 5,000 of them. So they are bundling all they can into as few as possible.

This FAQ fixes a number of discussion threads on a number of different archetypes stacking questions.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
they could have made the faq specific to class skills.

I think they are trying to be broad on the FAQ so they don't end up with 5,000 of them. So they are bundling all they can into as few as possible.

This FAQ fixes a number of discussion threads on a number of different archetypes stacking questions.

but i mean most other stuff wasn't in contention. I've seen this brought up a lot but haven't seen the other stuff the FAQ mentioned.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
but i mean most other stuff wasn't in contention.

I've seen more threads than I can remember that argued whether or not Sohei ability blocked other archetypes that added/removed Bonus Feats stacked. Whether or not adding/removing Bloodline spells made them stack/not stack.

In short, from my memory, the other things have been in continual contention. Until this FAQ, there wasn't a good way to say one way or another.

Grand Lodge

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.


Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.

"This alters" is a relatively new language that we've begun to do every time, but old archetypes, you'll find, will never have them.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.
"This alters" is a relatively new language that we've begun to do every time, but old archetypes, you'll find, will never have them.

Oh, no. No nonono.

Does this mean that Oath paladins are never compatible?

Silver Crusade Contributor

Oath of Charity and Oath of Loyalty is my favorite combination. But since each of them adds a spell to each spell level - without replacing or removing anything - they're incompatible.

I want to cry.

Designer

bookrat wrote:

Definition of terms and consistent use of those definitions is something that Paizo definitely has trouble with. This FAQ is a prime example. We have Class Features to be somewhat defined, with Class Skills distinctly outside of Class Features, except that this FAQ includes Class Skills as a part of Class Features (where Class Skills are not a part of Class Features elsewhere, like in the event where a Paladin falls and loses the Class Features). Likewise, we have Class Subfeatures, which is not defined anywhere official, but it is used officially here in this FAQ.

And this lack of defined terms with a lose use of them throughout the Rulebooks has caused confusion. The FAQ to helps with clarification then causes more confusion, also due to the lack of precise definitions, and then those of us who try to understand it are then shamed for trying to "bend the rules," when all we're doing is trying to understand what the heck is going on.

That post was only in reference to the posts attempting to make claims that directly contradicted the following line of the FAQ (see bold)

FAQ wrote:
However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class.

by saying that taking two archetype that each change class skills was OK.

The posts in question was not an attempt to ask for clarification or to figure things out. It was a direct assertion of fact that emphatically contradicted the FAQ. It probably wasn't your post, even, since as you say you were just trying to figure stuff out! I do apologize to anyone who thought my post was directed at them and meant to shame them for asking questions; not at ll the intent!

There's certainly no shame in trying to figure stuff out (I love doing it myself, and I'm always pretty outspoken about making sure we have clarifications and FAQs); honestly, there's not any reason for shame in attempting to contradict the FAQ, even, but I'm aware that it (and by "it" I mean contradicting, not trying to figure stuff out) could be a dangerous game, so my post was a warning of that, not a condemnation.

Designer

Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.
"This alters" is a relatively new language that we've begun to do every time, but old archetypes, you'll find, will never have them.

Oh, no. No nonono.

Does this mean that Oath paladins are never compatible?

Oathbound paladin even specifically says you can take multiple oaths, though, as long as they don't alter the same class feature. They all give spells. I'm going to bring it up at the office on Monday.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Thank you! I feel way better. <3

Silver Crusade Contributor

Personally, I think the FAQ would have been a lot better if it didn't penalize archetypes for only adding things.

Is there any reason that this wasn't the case? (Any reason that you can share, anyway.)

Again, thank you for being willing to discuss this with the community, and for your patience with us.


Quote:


For instance, a fighter archetype that adds Iron Will to the list of fighter bonus feats would not stack with one that removed the 2nd level bonus feat. But the aforementioned "remove the 2nd level bonus feat" archetype would stack with one that removes the 4th level bonus feat.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this is different from the case of swapping out individual skills. Fighter bonus feats by level are not italicized.


Mark Seifter wrote:
bookrat wrote:

Definition of terms and consistent use of those definitions is something that Paizo definitely has trouble with. This FAQ is a prime example. We have Class Features to be somewhat defined, with Class Skills distinctly outside of Class Features, except that this FAQ includes Class Skills as a part of Class Features (where Class Skills are not a part of Class Features elsewhere, like in the event where a Paladin falls and loses the Class Features). Likewise, we have Class Subfeatures, which is not defined anywhere official, but it is used officially here in this FAQ.

And this lack of defined terms with a lose use of them throughout the Rulebooks has caused confusion. The FAQ to helps with clarification then causes more confusion, also due to the lack of precise definitions, and then those of us who try to understand it are then shamed for trying to "bend the rules," when all we're doing is trying to understand what the heck is going on.

That post was only in reference to the posts attempting to make claims that directly contradicted the following line of the FAQ (see bold)

FAQ wrote:
However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class.

by saying that taking two archetype that each change class skills was OK.

The posts in question was not an attempt to ask for clarification or to figure things out. It was a direct assertion of fact that emphatically contradicted the FAQ. It probably wasn't your post, even, since as you say you were just trying to figure stuff out! I do apologize to anyone who thought my post was directed at them and meant to shame them for asking questions; not at ll the intent!

There's certainly no shame in trying to figure stuff out (I love doing it myself, and I'm always pretty outspoken about making sure we have clarifications and FAQs); honestly, there's not any reason for shame in attempting to contradict the FAQ, even, but I'm aware that it (and by "it" I mean contradicting, not trying to figure stuff out) could be a dangerous game, so my post was a warning of that, not a condemnation.

By the current reading of the FAQ, it is absolutely not contradictory. I even specifically mentioned that *adding* a new skill would make it incompatible. The only thing that made my suggestion of allowing specific skills to be swapped out invalid or contradictory was your clarification post defining what a subfeature is. This was done by defining subfeatures as specific abilities which are italicized, and since class skills are italicized then they wouldn't count.

I believe that if your definition of the subfeatures was included in the FAQ, then what your team has been trying to say will become fulfilled. But as of right now, the FAQ does not define subfeatures (and neither does any other Paizo source), which makes my reading of it completely valid.


RJGrady wrote:
Quote:


For instance, a fighter archetype that adds Iron Will to the list of fighter bonus feats would not stack with one that removed the 2nd level bonus feat. But the aforementioned "remove the 2nd level bonus feat" archetype would stack with one that removes the 4th level bonus feat.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how this is different from the case of swapping out individual skills. Fighter bonus feats by level are not italicized.

I see it as thus:

Skills are all granted at your first class level, and therefore are a single entity.

Fighter bonus feats are a collection of different class features.

"Level 1 Fighter bonus feat" is a different class feature than "level 2 fighter bonus feat."

If skills were granted at different levels, then it would be in the same league as the fighter bonus feats.

Just like a archetype that replaces "armor training 1" won't be compatible with another archetype that replaces "armor training," but would be compatible with an archetype that replaces "armor training 2." Of course, none of those are italicized, but they're clearly subfeatures of a class feature.


Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.
"This alters" is a relatively new language that we've begun to do every time, but old archetypes, you'll find, will never have them.

Oh, no. No nonono.

Does this mean that Oath paladins are never compatible?

Think of Oathbound as a single archetype, not each individual oath as an archetype. You take the Oathbound archetype and choose an oath(s). Each oath affects spells, but they're not multiple archetypes so that point is moot. It says that you can stack oaths so long as they don't otherwise affect the same class feature. It's pretty straightforward; similar to Qinggong Monk.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Kazaan wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.
"This alters" is a relatively new language that we've begun to do every time, but old archetypes, you'll find, will never have them.

Oh, no. No nonono.

Does this mean that Oath paladins are never compatible?

Think of Oathbound as a single archetype, not each individual oath as an archetype. You take the Oathbound archetype and choose an oath(s). Each oath affects spells, but they're not multiple archetypes so that point is moot. It says that you can stack oaths so long as they don't otherwise affect the same class feature. It's pretty straightforward; similar to Qinggong Monk.

Mr. Seifter was nice enough to point that out above. I'm so used to reading them in Herolab or on the Internet that I forgot about their original context.

Nevertheless, thank you. ^_^


bookrat wrote:


I see it as thus:

If skills were granted at different levels, then it would be in the same league as the fighter bonus feats.

So how does this interact with a gunslinger's level 3 deeds?


RJGrady wrote:
bookrat wrote:


I see it as thus:

If skills were granted at different levels, then it would be in the same league as the fighter bonus feats.

So how does this interact with a gunslinger's level 3 deeds?

Since those are italicized, they count as subfeatures and can be traded out individually. So an archetype that trades out pistol-whip would be compatible with an archetype that trades out utility shot. I didn't see any archetypes that trade out all dreads from a specific level based on a quick search of pfsrd.

Edit: I'm really trying to answer from the perspective of the new FAQ; if I get it wrong, let me know!

Silver Crusade Contributor

bookrat wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
bookrat wrote:


I see it as thus:

If skills were granted at different levels, then it would be in the same league as the fighter bonus feats.

So how does this interact with a gunslinger's level 3 deeds?

Since those are italicized, they count as subfeatures and can be traded out individually. So an archetype that trades out pistol-whip would be compatible with an archetype that trades out utility shot. I didn't see any archetypes that trade out all dreads from a specific level based on a quick search of pfsrd.

Edit: I'm really trying to answer from the perspective of the new FAQ; if I get it wrong, let me know!

I think you're correct. I wouldn't mind a clarification either, though. ^_^

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Mad Coil wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

It would have been a much better fix (and not invalidated many builds that were assumed to work together for some time now) to have ruled that changes to feats and class skills only counted as modifying the same class feature if they changed the same feat or skill, similar to the bardic performance subset argument.

It would have also remained consistent with the Quingong monk ruling that since it only adds options, it is compatible with any other one so long as you don't try and change the same power/ability twice.

As it stands, this ruling requires rebuilds of tons of in-play PFS characters since the rules have changed, because like you said upthread, the APG didn't make the distinction between class skills and class features which have been a separate listing.

Please Mark, give some consideration to modifying this FAQ to account for this reading, so that we don't have another crane wing or flurry reaction at a later date.

Sometimes, FAQs alter the rules, often as readied actions for errata. This is certainly not one of those times; it was very clear that they were in a grey area in the past, leaning towards disallowing by the strictest RAW interpretation of what counts as altering. And I say this as someone who actually has a PFS character affected that I made four years ago long before working here (my -2 had sohei + an archetype that alters bonus feats, but sohei only adds Mounted Combat, so I thought at the time that maybe it didn't count as altering bonus feats), and I experienced table variation on whether I had them both before now, which I was always happy to acquiesce. Believe me, I made sure to bring up all possible viewpoints before the PDT made the decision. Any PFS rebuilds (including my character) are for players who knew they were in a grey area and might not stay with both archetypes. I know, since I'm one of those players.

If you don't mind my asking what do you mean by grey area?

I...

How is this any different than the first two sentences of the faq? I'm super confused. The first two sentences of the faq seem to be I direct opposition of the following sentences.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
bookrat wrote:


I see it as thus:

If skills were granted at different levels, then it would be in the same league as the fighter bonus feats.

So how does this interact with a gunslinger's level 3 deeds?

Since those are italicized, they count as subfeatures and can be traded out individually. So an archetype that trades out pistol-whip would be compatible with an archetype that trades out utility shot. I didn't see any archetypes that trade out all dreads from a specific level based on a quick search of pfsrd.

Edit: I'm really trying to answer from the perspective of the new FAQ; if I get it wrong, let me know!

I think you have all adjudications of what would stack exactly right from the last two posts!

Silver Crusade Contributor

Thank you! ^_^


wraithstrike wrote:
...but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.

I agree. I understand what the ruling is, but only after Mark's clarifying posts. All terms need to be defined. Heck, until Mark posted what constitutes a subfeature, I didn't have a clear conception of what exactly that meant. Thank you for your clarifications, Mark, but the FAQ needs to be precise enough that you don't have to post such clarifications for it to be understood

Also, Kalindlara: do you primarily play at PFS? IF you do not, then I would not worry too much about stacking getting screwed up, if you have played with these combos and your GMs are fine with them, there's no reason to stop. The reason for rules on archetype stacking are to prevent imbalances from creative stacking, not to arbitrarily restrict.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Hopefully, they'll be discussing some clarifications on Monday. Try to stay positive and constructive, everyone.

Remember the Flurry FAQ? It's possible that their hearts could still be swayed, at least a little. ^_^

Designer

Susano-wo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
...but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.

I agree. I understand what the ruling is, but only after Mark's clarifying posts. All terms need to be defined. Heck, until Mark posted what constitutes a subfeature, I didn't have a clear conception of what exactly that meant. Thank you for your clarifications, Mark, but the FAQ needs to be precise enough that you don't have to post such clarifications for it to be understood

Also, Kalindlara: do you primarily play at PFS? IF you do not, then I would not worry too much about stacking getting screwed up, if you have played with these combos and your GMs are fine with them, there's no reason to stop. The reason for rules on archetype stacking are to prevent imbalances from creative stacking, not to arbitrarily restrict.

There's a reason the FAQ recommends that GMs consider allowing certain stacking on a case-by-case basis!

Silver Crusade Contributor

Susano-wo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
...but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.

I agree. I understand what the ruling is, but only after Mark's clarifying posts. All terms need to be defined. Heck, until Mark posted what constitutes a subfeature, I didn't have a clear conception of what exactly that meant. Thank you for your clarifications, Mark, but the FAQ needs to be precise enough that you don't have to post such clarifications for it to be understood

Also, Kalindlara: do you primarily play at PFS? IF you do not, then I would not worry too much about stacking getting screwed up, if you have played with these combos and your GMs are fine with them, there's no reason to stop. The reason for rules on archetype stacking are to prevent imbalances from creative stacking, not to arbitrarily restrict.

I'm planning to start PFS soon, but it's not by any means my primary method. My concerns are... more specific.

1) Herolab. It's easier to just do what it says than try to rewire archetypes to work together.

2) A GM might not allow even otherwise reasonable combos, because RAW. I'm so desperate to play that I might have to put up with that.

3) PFS. I said I was desperate to play. (My first planned character was a paladin of Arshea with three different Oaths...)

4) Even if I can houserule, it makes me uncomfortable to keep defying the rules so frequently. I know it's weird. ^_^


bookrat wrote:


Since those are italicized, they count as subfeatures and can be traded out individually. So an archetype that trades out pistol-whip would be compatible with an archetype that trades out utility shot. I didn't see any archetypes that trade out all dreads from a specific level based on a quick search of pfsrd.

But wouldn't that be a modification of 3rd level deeds, making the archetypes incompatible? If 3rd level deeds isn't a thing, why is a fighter's 2nd level feat a thing?

"Fighter bonus feats" is clearly a base ability, so if adding Iron Will is a modification, isn't not getting a bonus feat at 4th level also a modification?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Susano-wo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
...but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.

I agree. I understand what the ruling is, but only after Mark's clarifying posts. All terms need to be defined. Heck, until Mark posted what constitutes a subfeature, I didn't have a clear conception of what exactly that meant. Thank you for your clarifications, Mark, but the FAQ needs to be precise enough that you don't have to post such clarifications for it to be understood

Also, Kalindlara: do you primarily play at PFS? IF you do not, then I would not worry too much about stacking getting screwed up, if you have played with these combos and your GMs are fine with them, there's no reason to stop. The reason for rules on archetype stacking are to prevent imbalances from creative stacking, not to arbitrarily restrict.

There's a reason the FAQ recommends that GMs consider allowing certain stacking on a case-by-case basis!

I was going to ignore the skill thing personally so this is not so much an issue for me. However some GM's like to be bound by the book more than others do. I understand you might want to leave some of this in the power of the GM's, but many GM's including those like myself who will just ignore rules we don't care for still like to have an official rule.

At the very least a "this works like _____" and "this(other thing) is up to your GM" would be nice.

I don't think too many of us(not counting PFS) even mind the GM having the call, but we do want to know where table variance officially begins.

PS: For some reason I feel like I am not saying this as well as I would like to say it. Anyway I don't know how else to say it so I will sit back, and watch as I dont have as much as a horse in this race as some other GM's will.


RJGrady wrote:
bookrat wrote:


Since those are italicized, they count as subfeatures and can be traded out individually. So an archetype that trades out pistol-whip would be compatible with an archetype that trades out utility shot. I didn't see any archetypes that trade out all dreads from a specific level based on a quick search of pfsrd.

But wouldn't that be a modification of 3rd level deeds, making the archetypes incompatible? If 3rd level deeds isn't a thing, why is a fighter's 2nd level feat a thing?

"Fighter bonus feats" is clearly a base ability, so if adding Iron Will is a modification, isn't not getting a bonus feat at 4th level also a modification?

I would think trading out a 3rd level deed would be ok. It is italicized. Also Bookrat said the trading out pistol-ship would work. Now if something traded away deeds in their entirety that would be different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I'm planning to start PFS soon, but it's not by any means my primary method. My concerns are... more specific.

1) Herolab. It's easier to just do what it says than try to rewire archetypes to work together.

2) A GM might not allow even otherwise reasonable combos, because RAW. I'm so desperate to play that I might have to put up with that.

3) PFS. I said I was desperate to play. (My first planned character was a paladin of Arshea with three different Oaths...)

4) Even if I can houserule, it makes me uncomfortable to keep defying the rules so frequently. I know it's weird. ^_^

Oof, post got eaten, so it'll be the short version :/

I see what your concerns are, and I hope that things to end to catastrophically for your preferred archetype meshing :D

pt4 is not weird, and is actually quite common, though modding doesn't b bother me as long as peeps are on the same page.

@Mark: its good to remind people that they don't have to be slaves to the RAW, but the purpose of things like the FAQ is to make sure that people have a clear idea of what it is they are modifying. So GM flexibility, or forum clarifications are not substitutes for clear and precise rules writing, including in the FAQ

Silver Crusade Contributor

Grellik/Susano-wo's post puts me in mind of another point.

The physical books are limited by pagination - the requirement that the text not change enough to change page numbers of other references. The FAQ page, on the other hand, has no such limits.

If possible, longer FAQs - especially for complex issues like this - might be preferable, as you have a lot more space for clarification. I don't know if there's a specific reason for not doing so, other than use of valuable PDT time.

Just a thought. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't know i just don't like the FAQ, it feels arbitrary, it allows bonus feats at various levels to be swapped out but doesn't allow changing what the possible bonus feats could be with any of them?

I think i'm just going to pretend the FAQ never came out.


Hmn, this FAQ is exactly how I've always assumed archetype stacking to work...

But, anyway, does this really even affect that many builds?

I'm guessing there's only a dozen or so combinations this has a possible impact on.

151 to 200 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do archetypes that both alter class skills stack? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.