|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned before this was confusing to many people(myself included as I was an avid 3.5 player but switched to Pathinder for the combination of Inquisitors being awesome and that there was support for the game still) and I am very glad you were here to help Mark. Thank you, I believe I understand the FAQ, and although I feel it is overly restrictive I also understand why it is. In my home games I run, I already let all archetypes stack as long as you can give up an equivalent feature so this doesn't really affect my games in that way.
Contributor
|
PFS play not being able to use the "since we changed the rules you can just ask the GM to run it the way it was written" clause keeps some of these FAQrattas from being a good idea. Some people don't have homegame options, and from the perspective of a company whose internal organized play setup is based on buying the books, having less compatible options seems to be counterproductive to selling more books.
I know I have personally bought one of the $6-10 splatbooks for something as small as a single feat or archetype or spell for PFS play, and the more legal combinations you can achieve the more most people will buy.
Having a character that you built thinking it was an ok thing based on the printed text, and finding out 10 levels in that the combination of synching abilities it was built around is no longer legal is a pain. I would have never read skills as being class features for the purpose of archetype stacking based on the printed books.
That was why I wanted to ask for this question to be resolved in the same manner as the other examples of adding or changing only a few options from a larger list, such as Quingong Monk, Bardic Performances, and Gunslinger deeds. I would have also thought that an archetype that added feats to the list of possible bonus feats was legal, so long as all the normal feats were still available.
A lot of this dovetails with my own preferences. ^_^
|
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?
This archetype add the following swashbuckler deeds to the gunslinger deeds change the whole feature, this archetype exchange pistol whip with Targeted Strike change only pistol whip.
With this archetype you get Iron will at second level, this feat replace the bonus feat you get at second level only change the feat you get at second level and is compatible with something that change your 4th level bonus feat.
If instead it say "you add Iron will to the list of the fighter bonus feats" it change the feat feature and it is incompatible with something that change your 4th level bonus feat.
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.
Some things, like slight skill list modifications, are simple enough to house-rule. I just don't find the new answer clear.
For instance, if a new archetype offer additional "talent" but does not change when you get talents, does that mean that any other archetype that affects "talents" is not invalidated, even if you don't take those talents?
Since Wildblooded doesn't change the base ability, but only the selectable ("italicized") entries, does that mean Wildblooded sorcerers can now be combined with other sorcerer archetypes freely?
Is crossblooded illegal for archetype that grants or removes a class skill, since adding a second bloodline adds a new class skill?
It may well be that the answers to all those questions are answered in the FAQ, but as of this moment, I don't know what the answers are.
|
Since Wildblooded doesn't change the base ability, but only the selectable ("italicized") entries, does that mean Wildblooded sorcerers can now be combined with other sorcerer archetypes freely?
As far as I can tell changing the bloodline arcana and the scaling level powers doesn't change the actual Bloodline ability so yes this can be combined.
Is crossblooded illegal for archetype that grants or removes a class skill, since adding a second bloodline adds a new class skill?
Class Skills are both the same subfeature, so Crossblooded wouldn't work with something like Razmiran Priest which gained knowledge and perform but lost appraise and fly.
|
"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.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.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.
IIRC, the debate surrounding these two archetypes was that 1) Oathbound adds spells to the Paladin Spell list, and 2) Sacred Servant grants a Cleric Domain.
Those two archetypes do not modify the same Class Feature. One affects the Paladin Spell list, while the other grants an entirely new, unrelated ability.
This is evidenced by the Cleric class, which divides up "spells" and "domains" into separate Class Features.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
this question to be resolved in the same manner as the other examples of adding or changing only a few options from a larger list, such as Quingong Monk, Bardic Performances, and Gunslinger deeds. I would have also thought that an archetype that added feats to the list of possible bonus feats was legal, so long as all the normal feats were still available.
Quingong is a special case, nothing from how it works should inform opinions on how archetypes stack.
Table variance / multiple readings of RAW is a thing. There certainly have been plenty of threads debating whether adding a feat choice to a list stacked or not.
This FAQ does follow a pattern from past comments and past FAQ (Crossblooded/Wildblooded). Any alteration to an ability, blocks archetypes making alterations to the ability.
1) if a new archetype offer additional "talent" but does not change when you get talents, does that mean that any other archetype that affects "talents" is not invalidated, even if you don't take those talents?
2) Wildblooded doesn't change the base ability, but only the selectable ("italicized") entries, does that mean Wildblooded sorcerers can now be combined with other sorcerer archetypes freely?
3) Is crossblooded illegal for archetype that grants or removes a class skill, since adding a second bloodline adds a new class skill?
1a) Like one that "Add talent XYZ to list" and another that "replaces Talent list with this ABC list" - incompatible.
1b) Like one that "Add talent XYZ to list" and another that "swap level 4 talent with Iron Will" - incompatible.
1c) If 1a/1b doesn't cover it, give me an example please.
2) I wouldn't think of this as an FAQ that opens up new options, so if you previously thought it wasn't compatible. Care to give me an example?
3) I looked through a number of Sorcerer archetypes and I couldn't find an example. Care to shoot me an example you think might clash?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Class Skills are both the same subfeature, so Crossblooded wouldn't work with something like Razmiran Priest which gained knowledge and perform but lost appraise and fly.
+1
I might have chosen "overly-restrictive" as a term instead.
Considering the original term was "alter", I think it is as restrictive as the original term.
Aren't the Bonus skills from a blood line a function of the bloodline not the base class skills?
My problem with the FAQ is that it is that it lacks consistency. According to what has been posted Class skills are now considered class features, but only in regards to archetypes. I can understand this and don’t really have problems with archetypes that change class skills not stacking. What does bother me is that the rules are not being applied in a consistent and logical manner. We now have separate definitions for a class feature depending on if we are talking about the base class or an archetype.
If a character wants to take two archetypes that change his class skills he can’t because this changes the same class feature. If that very same character is playing a paladin and falls class skills are not considered class features. The game is starting to resemble dragon poker. The next thing we know you will get bonus HP on Tuesdays, except if you are facing north.
If they want class skill to prevent an archetype from stacking simply state that. Don’t start making a bunch of situational definitions for a basic game mechanic.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My problem with the FAQ is that it is that it lacks consistency.
The interesting thing about this FAQ, is that it seems to only have strong opinions.
I like it because it seems consistent and to make sense to me. It might be because I've always interpreted stacking archetypes in a way consistent with this FAQ.
|
Contributor
|
My problem with the FAQ is that it is that it lacks consistency.The interesting thing about this FAQ, is that it seems to only have strong opinions.
I like it because it seems consistent and to make sense to me. It might be because I've always interpreted stacking archetypes in a way consistent with this FAQ.
I can understand that mindset. I was the same way about courageous weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for most of these FAQs, there are two distinct groups of people (or more than two!) who expect the answer to be one way or the other. If you're in the group for whom the answer is expected, it is of the utmost importance to remember empathy for the other group. And there always is that other group or it wouldn't have gotten a FAQ. They are going to be upset, and so please don't try to tell them they shouldn't be upset or "they should have known better." The important thing is, they didn't. Now, that said, those who believe this last topic wasn't a grey area (on either side; whether they agreed with the FAQ answer or disagreed and think that the FAQ is a "change") don't have enough history with this topic on all the old threads over the years.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for most of these FAQs, there are two distinct groups of people (or more than two!) who expect the answer to be one way or the other. If you're in the group for whom the answer is expected, it is of the utmost importance to remember empathy for the other group. And there always is that other group or it wouldn't have gotten a FAQ.
And if you're in the group who disagreed with the result (as I am here), remember that this is no reason to be aggressive or insulting toward the PDT or the other group, either.
Be polite, but make your point. Monks can flurry with a single weapon, after all, and that wasn't always the case.
Honestly Bandw2 I didn't think you'd follow the FAQ if it didn't agree with you anyways. This wasn't arbitrary it was very well discussed and Mark keeps coming back to help explain it, even to the point of answering any of over a dozen questions about it. Arbitrary isn't the word I'd use at all.
allowing you to swap out 1st and 2nd level feats but not add a single bonus feat to the list is PRETTY darn arbitrary(i'm using this term as accurately as I find it's definition to be). It doesn't have balance in mind, and thus it's reasoning is arbitrary within pathfinder's rules(basically, there's no mechanical issue here really and it doesn't even open up serious concerns, it relies on this subfeature and feature distinction instead of what would make the game balanced).
A more clearcut ruling would have been if an archetype removed something that another archetype removes or relies upon then those two archetypes are incompatible.
though this is all opinion, i'm not trying to get the design team to change it or anything.
If they want class skill to prevent an archetype from stacking simply state that. Don’t start making a bunch of situational definitions for a basic game mechanic.
this too
How would this FAQ affect the Beastmorph alchemist?
How would this FAQ affect the Beastmorph alchemist?
if it alters how it works (it's adding options like adding a new choice of bonus feats i feel) then it can't stack with anything else that mutagen effects.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How would this FAQ affect the Beastmorph alchemist?
Anything that adds, removes, changes, limits or replaces the Mutagen ability would alter it. So it won't be compatabile
3) Is crossblooded illegal for archetype that grants or removes a class skill, since adding a second bloodline adds a new class skill?3) I looked through a number of Sorcerer archetypes and I couldn't find an example. Care to shoot me an example you think might clash?
This isn't truly an example, but try to combine false priest and crossblooded.
Due to the FAQ, this is already illegal. Crossblooded changes the possible choices you have for the bloodline spells and powers, so modifying even one bloodline spell or power makes false priest incompatible.
However, for the sake of argument, and if there was ever a sorcerer archetype that changed class skills without messing with anything else that would be incompatible with a crossblooded sorcerer, would it be incompatible?
Crossblooded causes you to gain the class skill granted by the second bloodline. False priest changes some of the class skills of the sorcerer. Therefore, i would say, that they'd be incompatible.
Aren't the Bonus skills from a blood line a function of the bloodline not the base class skills?
That's what I thought before the FAQ, but now I don't know.
Aren't the Bonus skills from a blood line a function of the bloodline not the base class skills?That's what I thought before the FAQ, but now I don't know.
Yes, of course they are. It's a subfeature of the bloodline.
You get the bloodline. Then based on the bloodline you get a bonus class skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't the Bonus skills from a blood line a function of the bloodline not the base class skills?That's what I thought before the FAQ, but now I don't know.Yes, of course they are. It's a subfeature of the bloodline.
You get the bloodline. Then based on the bloodline you get a bonus class skill.
shhhhh you're just making the holes in the FAQ bigger.
Um... how?
You have a class subfeature that adds a skill.
That does nothing to "alter" your skills or what not. It has no interaction with the FAQ other than if you have an archetype that alters that subfeature.
You can alter the actual class list all day with one archetype and still take another that alters your bloodline bonus skill because it is its own class sub feature, and has no actual impact on your class skills.
My problem with the FAQ is that it is that it lacks consistency.The interesting thing about this FAQ, is that it seems to only have strong opinions.
I like it because it seems consistent and to make sense to me. It might be because I've always interpreted stacking archetypes in a way consistent with this FAQ.
Do you also remove class skills from fallen clerics and paladins? As I said my problem is not with the ruling of the FAQ, but the way it is worded. To say that class skills are class features part of the time, but are not class features at other times is not consistent.
Mark already stated that the FAQ only applies to archetypes, so a paladin does not lose his class skills when he falls. That flat out means that class skills are, and are not class skills depending on what you are talking about.
Aren't the Bonus skills from a blood line a function of the bloodline not the base class skills?That's what I thought before the FAQ, but now I don't know.Yes, of course they are. It's a subfeature of the bloodline.
You get the bloodline. Then based on the bloodline you get a bonus class skill.
And many archetypes say Class Skill: You gain XYZ as a class skill. Why does the same logic not apply?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the FAQ is that it is that it lacks consistency.The interesting thing about this FAQ, is that it seems to only have strong opinions.
I like it because it seems consistent and to make sense to me. It might be because I've always interpreted stacking archetypes in a way consistent with this FAQ.
Do you also remove class skills from fallen clerics and paladins? As I said my problem is not with the ruling of the FAQ, but the way it is worded. To say that class skills are class features part of the time, but are not class features at other times is not consistent.
Mark already stated that the FAQ only applies to archetypes, so a paladin does not lose his class skills when he falls. That flat out means that class skills are, and are not class skills depending on what you are talking about.
And it does need to be consistent. I shudder to imagine the can of worms that this is going to open if it stays phrased this way.
"According to page XX, this ability works this way and counts as <Blah>."
"True, but how do we have any idea if that's meant to apply in this situation?"
Literally the entire game needs its words to mean the same things each time they're used. And we need to be able to trust the game to operate that way.
"True, class skills do not count as class features, as seen in the fallen Paladin who still has all his ranks in whichever skills he put ranks in. Ditto for his other non-feature class-derived statistics (BAB, Saves, hp, etc.).
"But they were supposed to have been included in the criterion for whether archetypes can simultaneously apply to a class. The specifics as follows..." --> Something to this effect would have been much more preferable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Tectorman and a few others believes it is inconsistent, and I and a few others believes it is consistent.
I don't know how to handle the dichotomy.
An even split dichotomy means the wording needs to be shored up to reduce confusion. If it were a small percentage of people who got it wrong, then the issue is likely with those individuals. When half the people or more get it wrong, then it's an issue with communication and the message needs to be rewritten.
And many archetypes say Class Skill: You gain XYZ as a class skill. Why does the same logic not apply?Aren't the Bonus skills from a blood line a function of the bloodline not the base class skills?That's what I thought before the FAQ, but now I don't know.Yes, of course they are. It's a subfeature of the bloodline.
You get the bloodline. Then based on the bloodline you get a bonus class skill.
Because they are not a specific sub feature?
You do realize you are being very disingenuous right?
Look at the actual sorcerer class and bloodlines.
Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil. Regardless of the source, this influence manifests in a number of ways as the sorcerer gains levels. A sorcerer must pick one bloodline upon taking her first level of sorcerer. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.
It is specifically a sub feature, not a change to the base class, not an alteration of the class skill list. It is a feature of the bloodline. If somehow you change the bloodline you don't keep the bloodline skill, you gain the new one.
As opposed to say the Cad archetype which doesn't have a feature or sub feature; it is simply changing the class skills.
I feel like I had a pretty good understanding of the FAQ and where it applies. I think it is consistent enough that I can generally use it for most archetypes and how they work.
This specific FAQ uses different definitions for the already-established game term "class features". It goes on to say that this different definition is a one-time definition change: "this is what a class feature is for the purpose of archetypes." Just because the term "class feature" is being used differently here is not meant to mean anything for any other purposes. This specific FAQ is very clear.
The problem is that we need to be able to compare parts of the game to other parts of the game and trust that, because they're in the same game, they can be compared.
Towards the beginning of the thread, people were operating on an understanding of what a "class feature" was and wasn't for the purposes of how archetypes work by going to other parts of the game where what is and isn't a "class feature" and seeing how those other parts of the game worked. That is basic logic. If the PDT wants to come in and say, "yes, that is the conclusion you could logically draw from those other circumstances; however, when we wrote the APG and said 'class features', we meant to say 'class features and <Blah>'; therefore, your logical inference, while still being a logical inference, no longer applies, also for a logical reason", then that's fine.
But like I said, this is opening up a nasty can of worms. What means what? Does it apply anywhere else? Does it even apply where I read it? How can I trust that any conclusion I draw from reading any of this is worth the calories it took to think up that conclusion?
|
|
Terminology has always been an issue in this game because Paizo tries to keep the text as it appears in the hard cover versions valid. They don't use something such as the Magic: the Gathering card game 'oracle text', which is an online version of the card's official and current text, to keep everything perfectly clear. I believe I have heard reasons such as giving room for GM interpretation or keeping the hard copy and electronic versions the same.
My point here being that they created a new term 'subclass feature' and then went on to define it well enough that it can be used to understand the actual text in the hardcover books which won't be changed without a new printing. Is it perfect? Probably not there will almost always be questions but it allows people to work with the archetype combinations in some capacity without reprinting their entire product line.
Because they are not a specific sub feature?
You do realize you are being very disingenuous right?
Look at the actual sorcerer class and bloodlines.
Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil. Regardless of the source, this influence manifests in a number of ways as the sorcerer gains levels. A sorcerer must pick one bloodline upon taking her first level of sorcerer. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.It is specifically a sub feature, not a change to the base class, not an alteration of the class skill list. It is a feature of the bloodline. If somehow you change the bloodline you don't keep the bloodline skill, you gain the new one.
As opposed to say the Cad archetype which doesn't have a feature or sub feature; it is simply changing the class skills.
Actually, Cad works the same way:
Skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Sleight of Hand (Dex), and Stealth (Dex) are class skills for a cad.
It doesn't even say Class Skills, it's just a standalone class feature named "Skills." The Cad Archetype uses exactly the same mechanism as a sorcerer bloodline to add a class skill.
|
|
"Class Skills are not a class feature, and so long as two different archetypes do not alter the entire list or change the same specific class skill(s) they can be combined."
This works differently than the current FAQ.
Actually, Cad works the same way:
It doesn't work the same way. Fighter has two class features called skills if you compare the base class to this archetype.
Sorcerer has the class features Skills and Bloodline. Under Bloodline we have the subfeature (which was just defined in the FAQ) called Skills. The subfeature is ok to change according to the FAQ.
It doesn't work the same way. Fighter has two class features called skills if you compare the base class to this archetype.
Sorcerer has the class features Skills and Bloodline. Under Bloodline we have the subfeature (which was just defined in the FAQ) called Skills. The subfeature is ok to change according to the FAQ.
I don't follow. Fighter has this:
Class Skills
The fighter's class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).Skill Ranks per Level: 2 + Int modifier.
It is clearly called class skills. In fact, sorcerer is even more clear-cut, because it says this:
Class Skill: Knowledge (any one).
whereas Cad says this:
Skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Sleight of Hand (Dex), and Stealth (Dex) are class skills for a cad.
Both have a standing class feature which adds class skills, and the bloodline entry actually calls it Class Skill.
|
|
Guys if you really want perfectly consistent use of the worlds there is a easy fix that will not please anyone.
Paizo stop using contributors that aren't employees and use only 3 or 4 developers. And then they check each other work to see all the therms are used with perfect consistency.
Production will go down to 1 book year and maybe not even that, but you will get your wish.
As long as there are contributors that aren't employees, w hardbound year and several softbound supplement your wish will never be fulfilled.
Guys if you really want perfectly consistent use of the worlds there is a easy fix that will not please anyone.
Paizo stop using contributors that aren't employees and use only 3 or 4 developers. And then they check each other work to see all the therms are used with perfect consistency.Production will go down to 1 book year and maybe not even that, but you will get your wish.
As long as there are contributors that aren't employees, w hardbound year and several softbound supplement your wish will never be fulfilled.
I can assure you that there ways to achieve consistency beyond this method. Many even. Standardizing terms goes a long way to achieving this.
But "Bloodline" is a separate class feature. Skills under "Bloodline" means it is a 'subfeature' that is part of Bloodline as a whole.
So would Cross-blooded be compatible with an archetype that eliminates the bloodline class skill?
|
|
Crossblooded isn't compatible with something which removes the bloodline class skill because it alters the bloodline class skill.
I'm actually mistaken further above. Crossblooded indeed doesn't work with Razmiran Priest as I said, not because of the Class feature skills Priest alters but because of the Bloodline powers.
Crossblooded won't combine with any sorcerer archetypes which alter the Bloodline Class feature or a Bloodline subfeature.