|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain does not qualify for the Advanced Weapon Training
It seems to me that's the entire point of granting that archetype the class ability in the book that gives this feature. Why is it disallowed for PFS?
..this is supposed to be in the PFS forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that Fighters can have at least one thing all to themselves?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a compelling reason why you can't take it as a feat with your bonus feats that allow you to count as a fighter.
I've done exactly that thing for a my Thrown Weapon Arsenal Chaplain warpriest build and even got other people's opinions on using that interpretation.
It seemed straightforward to me that you didn't get additional groups and couldn't trade them in (because you don't have them) for AWT.
I wonder if this is just a specific rule for PFS, or if that's how it's generally supposed to work.
The Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain does not qualify for the Advanced Weapon Training on pages 18–19.
That's all that PFS seems to say on the matter. Not having the actual book, I'm not sure how that interacts with the feat to gain an AWT. Is the feat on one of those pages?
Edit: According to archives of Nethys, the feat is on page 19, so the arsenal champion doesn't qualify for it. In PFS.
I'm not sure if FAQ is appropriate here, because the problem is PFS specific. In regular play, the MAC should be able to take the feat as a bonus feat, but shouldn't get the natural advanced weapon training.
I'm not sure what the process is for taking things up with the PFS leadership, but I'm pretty sure it's separate from the FAQ system.
Unless the PFS leadership has been more verbose elsewhere, it may not have been an intentional restriction, to keep them from the feat. It doesn't help to clarify things, when the feat has the exact same name as the class feature.
Actually, scratch that, is the Advanced Weapon Training feat on page 18 or 19? Advanced Weapon Training not on page 18 or 19 are implicitly legal.
This was already covered a bit above, the feat is on page 19.
Does anyone know the proper way to take these sorts of questions up with the PFS leadership? Because I'm not completely sure if they intended to keep the feat from the MAC, but it certainly reads that way.
I'm fairly sure that the MAC not qualifying is just for the leveling, not the feat. Because for the feat you just need to qualify for the feat, which it can.
Except the feat is also on page 19, and thus MAC doesn't qualify in PFS. That may not have been the intent, but it's hard to read it any other way.
The feat is also named "Advanced Weapon Training". It is on that page. And so the MAC doesn't qualify.
That may have been the intent, but it's way too shaky of a reasoning to put up against table variation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's a "false choice" according to John Compton.
Unless you are spending multiple feats on various Weapon Focus (foci?) there isn't anything you could do with your Weapon Training at 9th (and 13th, etc) except take an Advanced Weapon Training. And that was not the intention.
|
|
Ie: no unchained eldritch scoundrel rogue....because it could be OP compared to...certainly not a couple dozen other things that are legal
Because it would effectively be an unchained ninja (a better unchained ninja than the unchained ninja) which is banned. It's not a matter of what it's better than, but what's in the same niche.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow that post makes me realize they do get extra groups, aka they get the full weapon training, not 1,2, etc... just need more weapon focus to make them functional
Again they sometimes make silly decisions, I disagree that it is a false choice as I've seen many warpriest builds with multiple weapon focus.
I have not (in PFS). 99.something% of PFS characters use only a single weapon type (and maybe carry a couple more in case of DR/bludgeoning/piercing/slashing but only use them for that purpose). The "false choice" comes in when you have to decide "do I spend a feat to get weapon training with something that is not my primary weapon? Or do I spend nothing and get Advanced Weapon Training with my primary weapon?"
Also by this logic, the feat should be made allowed, since it's not "free" by the logic John is using
This I do agree with. There were a couple of requests (including mine) to make it so, but they came to naught.
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just catching up on this thread and recalled clarifying this point before, so I'm glad that Kevin found that post. Looking back at it, I believe I understand the issue that folks are bringing up: that the arsenal champion should be able to take the Advanced Weapon Training feat, even if they aren't able to gain advanced weapon training options by nature of gaining additional warpriest levels. Am I following the concern correctly?
Depending on the resolution, KingofAnything may be right that it's better moved to the Campaign Clarifications document.
|
|
I'm just catching up on this thread and recalled clarifying this point before, so I'm glad that Kevin found that post. Looking back at it, I believe I understand the issue that folks are bringing up: that the arsenal champion should be able to take the Advanced Weapon Training feat, even if they aren't able to gain advanced weapon training options by nature of gaining additional warpriest levels. Am I following the concern correctly?
That is my viewpoint. That even though they can't swap out the 9th level additional group weapon training for an Advanced Weapon Training (I agree with your logic there, if it matters), they should be eligible to take the Advanced Weapon Training (Combat) feat on page 19.
Obviously they'd need to use one of their 6th level, 9th level, etc. warpriest Bonus Feats to get it since those are the only one for which their warpriest levels count as fighter levels.
The only possible stretch for power I see is the Weapon Specialist Advanced Weapon Training. Not sure if it's a big deal though.
Focus Weapon: Kukri
5th level: Weapon Training - light blades
6th level warpriest Bonus Feat: Weapon Specialization: Kukri
9th level Weapon Training - thrown weapons (whatever, really)
9th level warpriest Bonus Feat: Advanced Weapon Training - Weapon Specialist (Light Blades, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)
Result is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with all light blades for the cost of one feat. Also now allowing Weapon Training to apply to all of them. But honestly - a fighter can do the same thing. And as pointed out above most characters focus on only one weapon. Shields don't share a weapon group with any of the high-crit weapons so even sword-and-boarders won't be gaining that much.
Could lead to some minor shennanigans at 12th level, but things are starting to get beyond the pale by that point anyway.
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Because it would effectively be an unchained ninja (a better unchained ninja than the unchained ninja) which is banned. It's not a matter of what it's better than, but what's in the same niche.Ie: no unchained eldritch scoundrel rogue....because it could be OP compared to...certainly not a couple dozen other things that are legal
I feel like that argument never makes much sense when you have two legal classes that get fundamentally the same abilities and yet one is clearly better than the other. I get it when it comes to the Bloodrager archetype but not when there is a way to entirely duplicate the Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue but better with the Mesmerist. Sure there are some differences but they are fairly insignificant at higher levels.
|
|
I'm just catching up on this thread and recalled clarifying this point before, so I'm glad that Kevin found that post. Looking back at it, I believe I understand the issue that folks are bringing up: that the arsenal champion should be able to take the Advanced Weapon Training feat, even if they aren't able to gain advanced weapon training options by nature of gaining additional warpriest levels. Am I following the concern correctly?
Depending on the resolution, KingofAnything may be right that it's better moved to the Campaign Clarifications document.
That was my understanding of how the archetype would work all along. That you couldn't "swap out" the extras gained because they weren't explicitly listed. But I was dumbfounded when I saw the wording that (to me) implied they couldn't take the feat because that seemed to be exactly why they would open up that option in that book for them.
Basically I don't see anything wrong/broken/overpowered with spending a feat on it, so I couldn't figure out why it wasn't allowed (or seemingly unallowed, depending on interpretation).
I was also confused with why this was in the additional resources instead of the Campaign Clarifications doc.
|
|
I feel like that argument never makes much sense when you have two legal classes that get fundamentally the same abilities and yet one is clearly better than the other. I get it when it comes to the Bloodrager archetype but not when there is a way to entirely duplicate the Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue but better with the Mesmerist. Sure there are some differences but they are fairly insignificant at higher levels.Because it would effectively be an unchained ninja (a better unchained ninja than the unchained ninja) which is banned. It's not a matter of what it's better than, but what's in the same niche.Ie: no unchained eldritch scoundrel rogue....because it could be OP compared to...certainly not a couple dozen other things that are legal
How does a mesmerist get
-swift action invisibility 8+ times per day
-dex and a half to damage
-sneak attack
They put more thought into this sort of thing than you're giving them credit for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also didn't you originally argue FOR unchained ninja?
I argue(d) for their legality under the rules. I threw up the yellow flag that unchained ninjas were coming and thankfully, got an answer that that they were not permitted before it could become a widespread table problem, which is the result i was expecting if sooner than i expected it.
It's not that they would be game breaking: the entire point of unchained rogue was to have rogues again because both the ninja and the unchained rogue were much needed upgrades to the rogue. If the unchained ninja is an option everyone would take it instead of the rogue.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I feel like that argument never makes much sense when you have two legal classes that get fundamentally the same abilities and yet one is clearly better than the other. I get it when it comes to the Bloodrager archetype but not when there is a way to entirely duplicate the Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue but better with the Mesmerist. Sure there are some differences but they are fairly insignificant at higher levels.Because it would effectively be an unchained ninja (a better unchained ninja than the unchained ninja) which is banned. It's not a matter of what it's better than, but what's in the same niche.Ie: no unchained eldritch scoundrel rogue....because it could be OP compared to...certainly not a couple dozen other things that are legal
How does a mesmerist get
-swift action invisibility 8+ times per day
-dex and a half to damage
-sneak attackThey put more thought into this sort of thing than you're giving them credit for.
No they didn't because what I was hinting at in that posts was that they get that. IT only leaves extra damage which you know isn't that impressive for a sneaking class.
|
|
So is the consensus that they qualify for the feat, but not the "option to swap out higher Advanced Weapon Training options"?Right, on the general principle that you can't swap out what you don't have.
Yeah, that's why I was confused. I never imagined being able to swap out the following stuff because they obviously don't have that to trade away, I just wanted to take the feat which seems like should definitely be doable.
But is it? That's the part that's confusing.So is the consensus that they qualify for the feat, but not the "option to swap out higher Advanced Weapon Training options"?At the moment the language in Additional Resources prevents them from doing either.
John is considering a change to allow them to take the feat but not to do the swap-out.
The Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain does not qualify for the Advanced Weapon Training on pages 18–19.
That looks more like a clarification for what my basic assumption already was. But does that mean they can't take the feat? Technically it looks like it means that they can take the feat, but don't qualify for any of the options because it doesn't have the "unless specifically granted by another legal source" exception.
Looking back at my first post I obviously didn't make this clear. But my question stems from me wanting to take the feat to get some kind of advanced weapon training option.
Example:
Focus Weapon: Kukri
5th level: Weapon Training - light blades
6th level warpriest Bonus Feat: Weapon Specialization: Kukri
9th level Weapon Training - thrown weapons (whatever, really)
9th level warpriest Bonus Feat: Advanced Weapon Training - Weapon Specialist (Light Blades, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)
Result is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with all light blades for the cost of one feat. Also now allowing Weapon Training to apply to all of them. But honestly - a fighter can do the same thing. And as pointed out above most characters focus on only one weapon. Shields don't share a weapon group with any of the high-crit weapons so even sword-and-boarders won't be gaining that much.
This path is potentially interesting for a Natural Weapon build
|
|
I'm just catching up on this thread and recalled clarifying this point before, so I'm glad that Kevin found that post. Looking back at it, I believe I understand the issue that folks are bringing up: that the arsenal champion should be able to take the Advanced Weapon Training feat, even if they aren't able to gain advanced weapon training options by nature of gaining additional warpriest levels. Am I following the concern correctly?
Depending on the resolution, KingofAnything may be right that it's better moved to the Campaign Clarifications document.
So any chance this has been ironed out. I know I'd really love to have a post saying "No", if that is the decision than just silence. If it's still being looked at that's cool.
|
|
Hey, so here's a new wrench that might change how this gets ruled.
There seems to be 2 view of the chaplain's training.
view 1, the more popular according to my limited findings)
The WP gets 1 weapon group, "Sacred weapons" and all of their sacred weapons are in this group and they never get more groups. This doesn't play nice with AWT.
View 2, the less popular but possibly more correct)
The WP gets training like the THF.
"As the fighter class feature, but the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons."
"At 5th level, an arsenal chaplain gains weapon training as per the fighter class feature, but the benefits of this weapon training apply only to the his sacred weapons"
these two seem to be saying the same thing. That at lv5 you pick heavy swords, but can only use a subset of those weapons with the training. Then at lv9 you'd pick polearms, but again only getting use with weapons that match the restriction.
This view means that the WP gets new groups as they level and plays really nicely with AWT.
So if PFS has been going with view 1 as justification to ban, perhaps they should consider or find out if option 2 is actually the correct view or the view they want to go with.