|
| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm trying to make sense of the PFS archetype rules for Unchained classes. Up until this point, I've only played an Unchained Monk, so archetypes weren't a concern.
Specifically, can you have an Unchained Mad Dog Barbarian? Mad Dog delays rage until 4th level, then gets it at -3 effective levels. here's what I understand the rule for PFS to be:
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify how the rage class feature operates (such as the urban barbarian archetype), and she is limited to any barbarian rage power that appears in Chapter 1 (including the rage powers on page 13)"
Does Mad Dog Barbarian "modify how the rage class feature operates?" Or is it a legal archetype in PFS for an Unchained Barbarian?
|
The example (urban barbarian) seems to be indicate they mean when the benefit of rage changes - ex, urban barbarian changes the 'payout' of statistics and penalties. Mad dog isn't changing the 'mechanics' of rage itself, just a matter of when. Since Unchained changed the 'mechanics' of rage, it fails to be compatible with other rages (another barbarian archetype that couldn't be unchained for that reason is savage technologist, as that changes /which/ stats get bumped).
So as it stands, you may find table variation, but to /me/ the rule seems to imply that Mad Dog is viable - it has the exact same rage /rules/ just a matter of what effective level you have for rage's upgrades and number of rage powers.
|
|
Those are the two possibilities alright. Any other opinions? At first I thought like Nefreet, but I also thought it just said anything that modifies Rage. Reading it more closely, I think I agree with Farrindor. This is for someone else's character, so I don't want to advise them to choose an option if there's a good chance it might be ruled illegal. The choice to go Unchained Barbarian is really more about it being easier to play than any other advantage.
|
|
Since a "mad dog gains this ability at 4th level, except that her effective barbarian level for the ability is equal to her barbarian level –3."
So it's not only delayed (which would have meant that a level 4 mad dog would still have been a level 4 barbarian for number of rage rounds, but just not getting it for first 3 levels) but it's treating its barbarian levels as 3 lower, which I'd say is a modification of mechanics, not just of when it would receive rage.
For that matter, it'll be a reason why I wouldn't let mad dog archetype stack with other barbarian archetypes that modify rage as I view that both archetypes would be modifying rage.
|
|
Mad Dog doesn't stack with any other archetypes that modify Rage. Even if all it did was move Rage to 4th level and didn't adjust the effective level, that's still altering the class feature.
I'm not sure the intention was that lowering the effective level would disqualify it from working, but without comment from John Compton or Linda, I can see the argument on both sides. That means table variation, and I don't want to put a newish player in that position. So I'll find an alternative class for them to use.
|
***
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify how the rage class feature operates (such as the urban barbarian archetype)"
is not the same as:
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify the rage class feature"
***
It makes no change to how the feature operates.
Mad Dog is therefore legal.
|
|
And you'd be correct in the first instance.
The verbage is very different though for your second point.
"but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the base class as another alternate class feature"
It's not the same thing.
One is talking about alterations (period), the other talks about altering how it operates.
Well I started something it seems. I just wanted to know if a non-multiclassing solution existed to get an owlbear for a barbarian.
I'm not really sold on the Mad Dog archetype, but I will note that it doesn't say that its rage ability alters rage at all. In contrast, the Urban archetype clearly states that Controlled Rage alters Rage.
|
|
Agreeing with the "allowed" camp (certainly unusual for me). Functioning at a lower effective level doesn't alter how it operates. Barely affects it at all really, just 6 fewer rage rounds. It doesn't even delay when you get Greater Rage. Hmm... well I guess it would lower the level for rage powers, but still not a change to how rage itself operates.
|
|
Oh, wow. Didn't expect this to pop back up to the top. Since others started, I've marked my original post for an FAQ. My understanding when Unchained was released was that it was archetypes where the changes they made to Rage weren't compatible with the new mechanics for Rage. There's nothing unclear about how this would work, though that doesn't mean for sure that it does work. It would be great to have an answer one way or the other if it's important enough to people other than me.
d'Eon - I was unaware you'd posted on this before. Mine was not an attempt to argue against anything you were trying to do. I'm looking for a solution for a new player who wants a pet but doesn't want to deal with complicated mechanics for the base class. Eldritch Fighter is the next most likely choice, but that gets into mauler familiars and other more obscure things.
|
|
'When you get it' vs 'how it operates' is not the same thing.
Here's a yellow Volkswagen - it operates like so...
Oh sorry, you can't have it until next Tuesday.
Next Tuesday it will still be a yellow Volkswagen, and it will still operate the same way.
Feel free to back the contra view up with RAW though.
|
... that analogy doesn't work in the slightest in regards to class abilities -_-
Gaining Rage at 4th level instead of 1st is modifying the Rage ability.
If for whatever reason getting it later doesn't read as "modifying" to you there's nothing to argue that "except that her effective barbarian level for the ability is equal to her barbarian level –3." isn't EXPLICITLY altering Rage.
|
|
Which is the point.
The RAW says:
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify how the rage class feature operates (such as the urban barbarian archetype)"
Which is not the same as:
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify the rage class feature"
There is a reason they talk about the urban barbarian, context is everything.
|
|
Normal rage says: "At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds."
Mad dog rage says: "A mad dog gains this ability at 4th level, except that her effective barbarian level for the ability is equal to her barbarian level –3."
So it's not just delayed, it's also less effective barbarian levels being applied to number of rage rounds per day. If it was ONLY merely delayed without the -3 penalty, the mad dog would get rage at level 4 but would have the same amount of rage rounds as a normal barbarian. I call that modifying how rage operates; not the damage or bonus, but the amount of rage rounds, which is a function of how rage operates.
|
|
the rage is the same, How long you can rage is different. Because the delayed rage.
If they wanted to ban everything that modified rage they'd have said modified rage, NOT modifying how rage OPERATES. Since they used the different wording we should assume that they meant something different. Now, which archetype could alter rage but not alter how rage OPERATES? There must be some way for this to be true, even if it required a future archetype. Now, assuming this, HOW could an archetype alter rage without altering how rage OPERATES? If you can't figure out a difference then that's saying they made a mistake and wrote something that they didn't mean.
|
|
Whenever making a character for PFS and there are 2 different ways to rule a situation, and one way means the character is legal, and the other means it isn't, making a character in such a grey area is generally a bad idea.
Clearly there's nothing really wrong with an Unchained Mad Dog. Making Rage work 3 levels lower isn't like changing the stat bonuses or otherwise messing with rage in a way that would work differently for an unchained barbarian instead of a chained barbarian.
I feel like a strict reading of the rules makes an Unchained Mad Dog not legal, but it probably shouldn't.
Is there an easy way to reword the current rule that allows the Mad Dog without breaking anything else and without making the rule notably longer?
|
|
The ambiguity seems to come from conflating the working of other limitations (archetype rules for example) with what was written in the Blog.
The blog talks about the changes brought through Unchained, which in the Barbarians case, was a change in how Rage operates - mechanically the bonuses are quite different. Obviously these mechanical changes in operation would be at odds with other mechanical/operational changes to the ability - hence citing the Urban Barbarian.
My reading is that the intent was always to simply disallow operational changes to the ability itself - hence the addition of the word 'operates' and the example provided. This wording differs to earlier iterations which were more about the class feature itself, rather than the mechanics of its operation.
If they intended it to simply preclude any changes to Rage, it would have simply stated:
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify the rage class feature"
This would means a change to the feature itself, which would include any change - whether delayed levels or a change in mechanics.
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify how the rage class feature operates (such as the urban barbarian archetype)"
Means changes to the operation of that feature.
Getting the feature later doesn't change the way it operates, it still operates as normal and provides the listed benefits - changing if from one bonus type to another, the trigger mechanism, or having some alternate ability would be a change to its operation.
Curiously - I could change the name of the feature to Perform(Comedy) and that would have 0 effect on how it 'operates'.
|
There's a Developer clarification somewhere that I'm having trouble finding.
In it, they described how archetype stacking worked with regards to class ability subsystems. Bardic Performance was the analogy.
There's the base ability of Bardic Performance, and then there are the individual performances themselves.
If two archetypes swap out different individual performances, but otherwise do not alter the base ability, then the two archetypes can be combined.
But if one of them so much as tweaks the Bardic Performance ability however minorly, then the two cannot be combined. And, much as with this instance, I believe total duration of the ability was the comparison being made.
I see this situation as no different.
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. 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. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.
posted June 2015
By analogy to the above quote's example of adding 1 extra round of Bardic Performance, Mad Dog Barbarian counts as modifying Rage due to subtracting 3 levels worth of Rage rounds. Now, my understanding of the Unchained Classes is that they didn't count as normal archetypes, thus allowing a potential way to stack any Barbarian archetype onto Unchained, except that the PFS rule that people have quoted above specifically says that Unchained Barbarian is only allowed with archetypes that do not modify how the Rage class feature operates, thereby making the combination specifically illegal for PFS unless somebody at Paizo makes a FAQ to the contrary.
|
|
Those who think it's allowed totally agree that this is ALTERING or MODIFYING the rage class feature.
This is why we say if that's what they meant they would have written, "The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify the rage class feature"
This is how archetypes work.
BUT the text they wrote is, "The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify how the rage class feature operates (such as the urban barbarian archetype)"
1)Now this could mean the first one and they used special/different wording in this blog but meant the exact same thing as the wording they normally use.
OR
2)They specifically used this different wording because they wanted it to mean something different than the "normal" archetype stacking rule. That this was to be slightly more open because archetypes like Mad Dog don't alternate the effects of rage. Yes they alter rage class feature, but now how the rage is mechanically operating. Yes it has less of that rage, but again the rage doesn't operate differently.
Some feel that this is to be permissive and the alternate text means something and thus we are arguing the intent was 2, that you can do it. I'm not sure those that say it can't work are understanding WHY we say it can work, aka that we see the intent as option 2 and how that option is different from option 1.
So to help this discussion be productive. Do those saying it doesn't work see how option 2 is different from option 1?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're divided because of the different interpretations of "operate".
I doubt the author of the Blog dedicated as much thought to that seven letter word as we've done here.
Authors throughout Paizo have written content using a conversational style that most casual readers have little difficulty understanding.
But when you toss those creations into the meat grinder that is the Forums, I often picture said author in my head screaming "NOOOO!"
|
|
I'm running with definition 2.
They could have made a short sentence that flatly precludes anything that changes the Rage class feature, but instead they added extra words and even an example.
To accept position one would mean they had needlessly and deliberately added a bunch of words that confused what was (in other cases - such as Archtype rules) already a settled science.
I see no change in the OPERATION of the actual class feature - you get it later, but it operates the exact same unmodified way.
|
|
Rage (Ex)
A mad dog gains this ability at 4th level, except that her effective barbarian level for the ability is equal to her barbarian level –3.
***
The operation of Rage doesn't change, your effective level does though.
How is the ability itself operating differently?
"your effective level does though"
You just defeated your own argument.
|
|
So how has Rage changed though?Plenty.
Rage.Yes.
Not your access to it.You get it at level 4 instead of level 1. Change.
Not the level you are treated as.You're treated as 3 levels lower. Change.
Not the day of the week.Has nothing to with the Rage ability.
The ability?Changed. Twice.
Are you suggesting that every tome a Barbarian levels up, it changes the way every class ability operates?
Having a level 4 Barbarian and a level 4 Barbarian whose Rages functions always at 3 levels lower are two completely different things.
|
|
My assumption is that the choice of word 'operate' is to allow the greatest number of barbarian archetypes to be legal for use with the unchained barbarian, and to use good sense to determine what is compatible.
Mad Dog does not appear to change the way rage operates, and simply alters its availability in a way that is easily calculable with zero confusion. This is contrary to the urban barbarian archetype which changes the function of rage in such a way that it's obviously incompatible with the Unchained Barbarian.
To disallow a player option due to a dispute in the language that appears to contradict the developers intent feels like shaky ground to stand on unless we get some commentary from the team.
To those opposed to the Unchained Mad Dog, what would be the negative impact caused by someone sitting down at one of your tables with such a character? How would it's inclusion be detrimental to organized play, or to your play experience?
|
|
To those opposed to the Unchained Mad Dog, what would be the negative impact caused by someone sitting down at one of your tables with such a character? How would it's inclusion be detrimental to organized play, or to your play experience?
The fact that it's not legal.
It's as simple as that. There's plenty of options that would be fun in organized play, but they're not legal, so they're not allowed in.
|
|
My assumption is that the choice of word 'operate' is to allow the greatest number of barbarian archetypes to be legal for use with the unchained barbarian, and to use good sense to determine what is compatible.
Mad Dog does not appear to change the way rage operates, and simply alters its availability in a way that is easily calculable with zero confusion. This is contrary to the urban barbarian archetype which changes the function of rage in such a way that it's obviously incompatible with the Unchained Barbarian.
To disallow a player option due to a dispute in the language that appears to contradict the developers intent feels like shaky ground to stand on unless we get some commentary from the team.
To those opposed to the Unchained Mad Dog, what would be the negative impact caused by someone sitting down at one of your tables with such a character? How would it's inclusion be detrimental to organized play, or to your play experience?
I'm glad that the Gm's I play with view it this way because I'd have died from "Sudden Rageless Death Syndrome" twice now.
|
|
Rysky, do you see this post of mine? Will you answer the question at the end of it please? That will really help the conversation be more productive than a cyclical Yes/No that's going on with you right now.
|
|
Rysky, do you see this post of mine? Will you answer the question at the end of it please? That will really help the conversation be more productive than a cyclical Yes/No that's going on with you right now.
Sure, and I'm going by option 1.
2 is people reading too much into the word "operate" in my opinion.
|
Contributor
|
I'm not sure that the Archetype Stacking FAQ is binding in this case, as the discussion centers around whether an archetype can be applied to a base class, rather than whether two or more archetypes can be applied to the same class. (If I recall, it has been established that FAQs only apply to the situations or mechanics for which they were written.)
In any case, this seems like a good place for "expect table variation", at least until a more specific ruling can be made. ^_^
|
|
Rysky, do you see this post of mine? Will you answer the question at the end of it please? That will really help the conversation be more productive than a cyclical Yes/No that's going on with you right now.Sure, and I'm going by option 1.
2 is people reading too much into the word "operate" in my opinion.
Okay perfect, now we have a base to work from.
So lets pretend for a moment that they wanted this to be different from the archetype stacking rule. How would they convey that archetypes that change the bonuses that rage gives like urban aren't able to work for Unchained, but a class that has the same bonuses but gains rage later like mad dog are able to work? What do you think they'd write to convey that idea? I'm curious to see what would need to be there to convey to you that it should be ran the way we think it should be.I'm not saying that our way is right or intended or anything with this. I'm again trying to find a common base. What would be needed to be said to have you read it and share our view that urban is No but mad dog is yes?
The level you acquire a class feature is part of the class feature.
-j