Are alternate classes considered to be their base classes? Is a ninja technically a rogue? A samurai a cavalier? A paladin an antipaladin?
If an effect depends on a character being a paladin/rogue/cavalier, will that effect work on an antipaladin/ninja/samurai?
Having looked into this, I found out that the entry on alternate classes in the ACG is marked for errata, so I wouldn't trust that. It states that alternate classes are "technically archetypes," which seems to contradict the alternate class entry in UC.
Relevant text:
The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right. By the changes made here, though, the details and tones of the paladin class are shifted in a completely opposite direction and captures an entirely different fantasy theme, without needlessly designing an entire new class. While a redesign of sorts, this alternate class can be used just as any of the other base classes found in the first part of this chapter.
Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class—a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa.
These seem to directly contradict each other. My first impression from the APG is that an antipaladin is a paladin. My first impression from UC is that an antipaladin is not a paladin. If I had to guess, "alternate classes are standalone classes" implies to me that alternate classes are not considered to be their base classes. Does anyone have a different interpretation?
Ninjas can take Archetypes from Rogues as long as they replace the right features (as stated under Archetypes in the APG). For Example the Ninja can take Scout which replaces Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge.
The Samurai would follow the same method, though I don't know what Cavalier Archetypes replace what features.
Unlike the above two, The Anti-Paladin does not share similar abilities with it's companion class. They look the same, but they are different. As such, you couldn't replace anything with an Archetype.
An understanding GM might let you replace certain things but YMMV.
|
Once Unchained was released everything got thrown in Limbo.
Up until that point, Ninjas could indeed take Rogue archetypes. Ninja/Scout was incredibly popular in PFS, for example. Likewise, Ninjas were free to use the Favored Class Bonuses for Rogue.
Now, that no longer seems to be the case. Potentially hundreds of characters are currently unplayable (I simply retired mine).
Paizo says we'll have an answer eventually. Hopefully it's for the better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thread here is trying to get an answer to this question. It seems like the answer would be technically no, even though lots of people do it making it "in practice" more of a yes.
Like the others have said, at first it seemed that they were the same class, using actual wording like "it's an archetype so big, it basically got a new stat writeup." But with Unchained, they pretty much stated they're separate classes (but you can't multiclass Ninja/UnRogue, for instance). As Nefreet said, my PFS Scout/Ninja raised so many questions, I simply turned him from an interesting build into a boring Ninja, because I simply didn't know what the rules were.
So, from what I gather from the posted threads and the dev's responses, alternate classes are (most likely) NOT considered to BE their base classes, but are completely separate classes, because they have their own archetypes? And in order to have archetypes, they have to be distinct classes?
Is that correct?
that's what it seems like.
|
Alternate classes are archetypes so big that they can't stack with other alternate classes. The only instance this comes up is with an Unchained Rogue, which is illegal. Otherwise, alternate classes can take archetypes for their base classes so long as they have the requisite class features to trade out.
Alternate classes are archetypes so big that they can't stack with other alternate classes. The only instance this comes up is with an Unchained Rogue, which is illegal. Otherwise, alternate classes can take archetypes for their base classes so long as they have the requisite class features to trade out.
This has no rule support.
On the contrary, it has all the rules support. Your confusion is caused by a failure to distinguish "archetypes" from "alternate classes", but the rules are quite clear.
Can you provide 1 official source that says, "Alternate classes are archetypes so big that they can't stack with other alternate classes."?
|
|
Beyond what has been cited above?
Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While alternate classes are similar to archetypes in many ways, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class.
Beyond what has been cited above?
Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While alternate classes are similar to archetypes in many ways, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class.
You mean the text that Mark said isn't rules text?
Furthermore, I'm not sure why you are taking a paragraph about design principles as rules text. Your quote above is clearly flavor text intended to help GMs/prospective designers reason about how alternate classes might be designed.
And you yourself also stated that the quoted block isn't valid as rules text.
So yes, beyond the non-rules text cited above.
And here is my breakdown of parsing the passages presented and show that they only further confirm that currently there's no support for ninja's with rogue archetypes.
EDITED
I mean, if you know what you are going to think in the future, why waste time being wrong now?
What are you trying to say? I don't understand what point you're attempting to convey here.
|
|
My thread HERE is trying to get an answer to this question.
For anyone reading this thread who hasn't visited Chess Pwn's FAQ request, please go there now so we can get as many clicks as possible.
Thank you in advance.