| 39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
After yet another thread about Eldritch heritage and Wildbloodlines I though we could start an FAQ thread on the real issue.
Can A character take a archetype version of a class feature such as a Bloodline, Deed, or other named subset when gaining access to said feature through a source without that archetype.
besides the aforementiouned example another would be having an Amatuer Gunslinger take a deed granted specifficly to a gunsliger archetype.
After yet another thread about Eldritch heritage and Wildbloodlines I though we could start an FAQ thread on the real issue.
Can A character take a archetype version of a class feature such as a Bloodline, Deed, or other named subset when gaining access to said feature through a source without that archetype.
besides the aforementiouned example another would be having an Amatuer Gunslinger take a deed granted specifficly to a gunsliger archetype.
As a GM, my ruling is no. Those deeds / bloodline powers are features of a specific archetype and not of a class.
Hopefully you get an official FAQ, however.
By RAW it would depend on the wording of the individual ability. For instance with Eldritch Heritage it specifies only "bloodline" and makes no exception about what kind of bloodline it is limited to. Wildblooded bloodlines (not "wildbloodlines" as that isn't anything) are still bloodlines so it is applicable. If the feat gave a limiting phrase like "base sorcerer bloodlines" or something then it would be limited.
Not that it really hurts anything but this is the third recent thread on the topic. ;) If that doesn't show interest in a ruling I'm not sure what will.
Archetypes are for the character classes they are for. If I recall correctly, there are a few rogue or barbarian archetypes that the other would technically qualify for, but archetypes are for their class only. There are no rules to my knowledge that allow classes to take archetypes of other classes. I would be interested in seeing them with page number references if they exist.
This has been "possible" since the APG, with barbarians and the rogue archetype Burglar.
Cheapy - is that just personal opinion? I have seen nothing stating that and some of the wording of the feats and abilities seems to directly contradict that.
By RAW it would depend on the wording of the individual ability. For instance with Eldritch Heritage it specifies only "bloodline" and makes no exception about what kind of bloodline it is limited to. Wildblooded bloodlines (not "wildbloodlines" as that isn't anything) are still bloodlines so it is applicable. If the feat gave a limiting phrase like "base sorcerer bloodlines" or something then it would be limited.
Not that it really hurts anything but this is the third recent thread on the topic. ;) If that doesn't show interest in a ruling I'm not sure what will.
Just want to point out that Eldritch Heritage specifies sorcerer bloodlines. If you want to get ultra semantical, you can distinguish sorcerer bloodlines from the mutated bloodlines of the wildblooded archetype.
Of course, this isn't the definitive argument on this point, because the term sorcerer (EDIT: and the term mutated) in this case is used somewhat vaguely. Is it a game term with a specific meaning? Is it merely descriptive? Can we interpret it in the same way that we would interpret the word fighter in the prerequisites for the feat weapon specialization? Or should it be interpreted differently, because it's not being used to describe actual levels taken in a class, but rather to describe the quality of a particular thing (a bloodline)?
Really, debating the RAW of this feat is futile, because there's no single RAW that can be teased out. The text here is malleable, and not sufficiently defined by precedent to render a single, definitive interpretation. The logic of both sides to the argument is sound, and only a Dev can clarify who has the right premise.
Therefore, there is no proper interpretation of this feat except the one your DM gives until (*if) a Dev swoops in to clean up this mess.
EDIT: As James Jacobs recently said about the stealth rules, this is a case of RAPW (Rule as poorly written) causing a headache!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I agree that debating this is futile. The goal of this thread is not to debate but to garner support for the hitting of the FAQ button and getting the attention of a Dev.
One example of a class being able to take a archetype version of a class feature is the Archaeologist taking the Ninja Trick Rogue Talent to gain a Ninja Trick.
Totally RAW.
This is quite different than the posited question BBT.
The Rogue actually has the talent and therefore the ability to take the Ninja trick through a talent so yes anyone with access to the whole list of rogue talents could take a ninja trick.Now if Ninja tricks just said rogues could take them as rogue talents then the Archaeologist couldn't simply take a ninja trick as he isn't a rogue.
;_; I've had my thread up for 2 days trying to get people to hit FAQ and it's only got 4 FAQ checks, you got 20 in one day?? /sad
This topic seems kind of broad for a FAQ to address, each case would probably have to be looked at separately depending on the exact function and balance of the features.
Mine is about one issue and thats if a archetype grants new or modified versions of an ability that can't be gotten by the base class without the archetype can a person not of that class gain those abilities if they get them through non-specific* outside means.
*By non-specific I mean that if it says Deed or Bloodline in general not if it says you gain <insert exact ability name here>
By RAW it would depend on the wording of the individual ability.
This.
For example, Amateur Gunslinger states:
"You gain a small amount of grit and the ability to perform a single 1st-level deed from the gunslinger deed class feature."
*emphasis mine
So if you're looking for deeds anywhere other than under the gunslinger deed class feature (say, in the Class Archetypes section, for example) you're looking in the wrong place.
So, a Pistolero and Musket Master is not a Gunslinger?
Their deeds, are not deeds?
Irrelevant.
Their deeds are not listed under the gunslinger deed class feature.
Quantum Steve, what would you say about Eldritch Heritage which just says "pick a sorcerer bloodline"? That seems to leave more leeway for interpretation than the feat you mentioned.
The author of Eldritch Heritage did not know about the wildblooded archetypes at the time he wrote EH. It's quite literally impossible for it to have been the intent that they could be taken.
At the same time, he'd probably allow it now that he knows about them, but his company's motto is "we err on the side of awesome." ;)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
They are written under the gunslinger deed class feature of the relevant gunslinger archetype. These archetypes are still gunslingers, and their deeds are still deeds.
No, they are written under the gunslinger alternate deed class feature of the relevant gunslinger archetype.
Otherwise, all Gunslingers could select these deeds, as Gunslingers also choose from the deeds listed under the gunslinger deed class feature.
Quantum Steve, what would you say about Eldritch Heritage which just says "pick a sorcerer bloodline"? That seems to leave more leeway for interpretation than the feat you mentioned.
That depends on whether Wildbloodlines are bloodlines.
IMO, there is some validity to the argument that if Wildbloodlines are bloodlines, a Sorcerer could pick them normally without taking the Wildblooded archetype.
Which means that the sorcerer could also take other archetypes that modify the Bloodline Arcana and Bloodline Powers abilities, like Crossblooded. It would also mean that you could have a Crossblooded Sylvan/Fey sorcerer.
Which means that the sorcerer could also take other archetypes that modify the Bloodline Arcana and Bloodline Powers abilities, like Crossblooded. It would also mean that you could have a Crossblooded Sylvan/Fey sorcerer.
This. You know, actually I think I remember seeing some builds around here that used Crossblooded with Wildblooded. I don't recall this issue being brought up then and I do not see how it is any less relevant to that discussion. This is an excellent point, Quantum Steve. I would believe that it is possible to have a Crossblooded, Wildblooded Sorcerer (even in the context of a Sylvan/Fey).
Which means that the sorcerer could also take other archetypes that modify the Bloodline Arcana and Bloodline Powers abilities, like Crossblooded. It would also mean that you could have a Crossblooded Sylvan/Fey sorcerer.This. You know, actually I think I remember seeing some builds around here that used Crossblooded with Wildblooded. I don't recall this issue being brought up then and I do not see how it is any less relevant to that discussion. This is an excellent point, Quantum Steve. I would believe that it is possible to have a Crossblooded, Wildblooded Sorcerer (even in the context of a Sylvan/Fey).
Perhaps a better example would be a Wildblooded (Sylvan) and Tattooed Sorcerer.
The Wildblooded archtype (Sylvan bloodline) replaces the 1st level bloodline power with an animal companion, the Tattooed Sorcerer archetype replaces it with a Tattoo Familiar. You can't take both.
If the sorcerer did not have to take the Wildblooded archetype to select the Sylvan bloodline, then there isn't a conflict. Which begs the question why take the archetype at all if you don't have to to get the mutant bloodlines? It's nothing more than a handicap to your character.
The more I think about it, the more I think the mutant bloodlines are intended to be unique the archetype and not normal bloodlines that any sorcerer can select.
Isn't that just like any other archetype though? You can't select two archetypes if it replaces the same ability as the other.
I don't see this as a problem, I see it as the intended way for it to work. And I think that this all works in tandem with the way that Eldritch Heritage interacts with bloodlines (all bloodlines). I guess what I'm saying is that your last example doesn't really give any reason why it couldn't.
|
Another example is the Wild Stalker Ranger, who can select more than one group of totem rage powers, as he is not a Barbarian and is not restricted as the Barbarian is.
A Totem Barbarian can select more than one group of totem rage powers, and is an archetype, and though the Wild Stalker is not a Totem Barbarian, he is as free as the archetype in selecting rage powers.
He gains a rage power "as the barbarian class feature" The barbarian class feature is what includes the restriction.
Rage Powers (Ex): The following new rage powers can be taken by any barbarian that meets the prerequisites. Totem rage powers grant powers in a theme. A barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers. For example, a barbarian that selects a beast totem rage power cannot later chose to gain any of the spirit totem rage powers.
He gets it just like a barbarian which means no he cannot take more than one totem without multiclassing.
He has the same class feature which contains that text.
On the lawful note yes a lawful wild stalker can but thats because the non-lawful things isn't tied to rage but to the class. A wild stalker never gets an alignment restriction. He does however gain a rage power "As the barbarian class feature" which includes all relevant rules for rage powers.
Talonhawke, I think your missing what BBT is saying. He isn't arguing on the basis of "rage as a barbarian" vs. "as the barbarian class feature". He is arguing that under Rage Powers in the APG it states, "A barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers."
It does not state "A Ranger with the Wild Stalker Archetype cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers."
If this does not apply to Wild Stalker Ragers because it sepcifies "Barbarians":
Rage Powers (Ex): The following new rage powers can be taken by any barbarian that meets the prerequisites. Totem rage powers grant powers in a theme. A barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers. For example, a barbarian that selects a beast totem rage power cannot later chose to gain any of the spirit totem rage powers.
Then, neither does this:
Animal Fury (Ex): While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus –5. If the bite hits, it deals 1d4 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d3 points of damage if Small) plus half the barbarian's Strength modifier. A barbarian can make a bite attack as part of the action to maintain or break free from a grapple. This attack is resolved before the grapple check is made. If the bite attack hits, any grapple checks made by the barbarian against the target this round are at a +2 bonus.
or this:
Knockback (Ex): Once per round, the barbarian can make a bull rush attempt against one target in place of a melee attack. If successful, the target takes damage equal to the barbarian's Strength modifier and is moved back as normal. The barbarian does not need to move with the target if successful. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Actually, I'm not certain there is a single Rage Power that works for non-Barbarians even if they have a way to acquire the power.
Wait!
Rage of the Wild (Ex): At 4th level, a wild stalker gains the rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but its barbarian level is considered to be his ranger level –3. This ability replaces hunter's bond.
The Wild Stalker is considered to be a Barbarian of his Ranger level -3. So ALL of those other things apply, since he is considered to be a Barbarian.
False Alarm. The class works after all.
So then A vivesentionist can't actually sneak attack then since he gains Sneak attack as the rogue class feature.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Sneak Attack: At 1st level, a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on). This ability replaces bomb.
Since he isnt a rogue he doesn't get any extra damage from a class feature by your logic. Since it doesn't state An Alchemist with the vivisectionist Archeytpe deals extra damage....
But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say, "The Wild Stalker is considered to be a Barbarian of his Ranger level -3." It does say that for his Rage of the Wild class ability that:
At 4th level, a wild stalker gains the rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but its barbarian level is considered to be his ranger level –3. This ability replaces hunter's bond.
But making that step between his "barbarian level is considered" for purposes of a class ability to "the wild stalker is considered to be a Barbarian of his Ranger level -3." is a leap in logic in exactly the same sense that some are saying "mutant bloodline" is not the same as "bloodline".
I think he was just making a point. I don't think that BBT actually believes that it was made to not work. I think he believes that it was made to work but that it requires not being overly pedantic when reading the rules. That happens to be the same thing we are suggesting with Eldritch Heritage and Wildblooded Bloodlines.
Well then bbt does a class gaining another class' feature sub its name in or not.
If Barbarian doesn't equate to Wild stalker then a lot of rage powers don't function. If on the other hand it does then you have a limit on totem powers.
Well, Talonhawke, can a character who takes the Eldritch Heritage feat select Wildblooded bloodlines or not?
If they can not then you are conceding that you wish to read the rules by your interpretation of the letter. If on the other hand they can then you admit that not every single detail of every ability was considered and reworded to allow for them to function compatibly. If the latter is the case then the Wild Stalker should be considered to be a Barbarian for the purposes of Totem Rage Powers, and Wildblooded bloodlines should be considered to be bloodlines for purposes of the Eldritch Heritage feat.
They State as QS pointed out When the Barbarian not effective barbarian. You seem to want to count as one when its benifical such as using your rage and rage powers(none of which state effective barbarian or Wild stalker )but not when it restricts you.
Much like my example with the vivisectionist if you claim that the name of a class only applies to it and not those functioning as a vivisectionist gains nothing in place of his bombs since he isn't a rogue.
Except theres one issue the two aren't quite the same see a sorcercer can't take them without being Wildblooded.
That Archetype is the catalyst to making them work. Without the text of that archetype how do you proceed to gain the ability to change fey into slyvan?
A sorcerer who gains arcane bond can't turn around and change it out for Bomb or Arcane Gun.
So why can a non-sorcerer gain access to abilities limited by archetype when gaining a bloodline.
Actually, I don't think he claimed that the rage powers worked, only that he could select them. He did ask you why they wouldn't work, though.
If you are saying that they would function then your saying that it meant they should even though it didn't state that the Wild Stalker is considered a Barbarian when it is beneficial to use the rage power, but when you don't want it to work (like with Totem Rage Powers) then it doesn't because you want to interpret it as meaning that Wild Stalker is considered a Barbarian.
Look at it this way, if a spell or ability would only effect a Barbarian, would effect a Wild Stalker?
No he isnt a barbarian at all but he uses certain class features as one.
If a spell said that the Rage class feature of a barbarian didn't work within its area do you think a Wild Stalker could rage within it?
So why can a non-sorcerer gain access to abilities limited by archetype when gaining a bloodline.
Because that is how the feat is worded. It says to select a sorcerer bloodline. It doesn't disclude wildblooded sorcerer bloodlines. There is no exclusitory statement made.
If a spell said that the Rage class feature of a barbarian didn't work within its area do you think a Wild Stalker could rage within it?
Do you?
So since one witch archtype can cast Cure spells then if i get spell from the witch spell list from a feat my wizard could cast cure light wounds?
I think he was just making a point. I don't think that BBT actually believes that it was made to not work. I think he believes that it was made to work but that it requires not being overly pedantic when reading the rules. That happens to be the same thing we are suggesting with Eldritch Heritage and Wildblooded Bloodlines.
I don't think either Eldritch Heritage or the Wildblooded archethye were created with each other in mind, but that's beside the point.
Consider this:
Suppose, using Eldritch Heratige, one could gain the powers of a mutated bloodline independently of the Wildblooded archetpye. What if one were to take Greater Eldritch Heritage with a mutant bloodline? Most mutant bloodlines have only a single power and an arcana.
One might be inclined to say that the other powers are those of the associated bloodline, but nowhere, in any of the mutant bloodlines is that stated. It is only stated in the Wildblooded archetype. Eldritch Heritage only grants bloodline powers, it cannot grant archetypes of a class you don't have.
One could argue that Eldritch Heritage also grants access to the related class abilities governing how the mutant bloodline functions, but return to the Wild Stalker Ranger analogy. If the Wild Stalker Ranger used rage just like a Barbarian does, using the entire Barbarian description instead of just the Rage and Rage Powers class features, he would also be subject to this rule:
Ex-Barbarians
A barbarian who becmes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class.
That rule certainly governs how Rage functions. A Lawful Ranger would not be able to Rage. Which is unintuitive since the Wild Stalker Ranger has no alignment restrictions.
The mutant bloodlines aren't full fledged bloodlines. They're "archetypes," if you will, of existing bloodlines. You can't take them without taking the Wildblooded archetype.
Now, if a Wildblooded Sorcerer were to take Eldritch Heritage for a bloodline he doesn't have, that would work because he has the archetype. That works both ways, though, a Wildblooded Sorcerer would not be able to use Eldritch Heritage to take a regular bloodline with an associated mutant, the Wildblooded archetype would change the blooline powers.
No my belief is that you can't gain an ability from an archtype simply by getting an ability from a general list that the archetype modifies.
That in no way causes anyting except for those few situations to cease to fuction.
On an off note it seems JJ is of the same mind and even if you don't agree yes we all know he isnt the rules guy but its the first offical word we have and I'm just keeping this thread updated.
For those interested in James Jacobs' take, I asked this question of him:
"Are the wildblooded bloodlines bloodlines in their own right? Would you be able to select wildblooded bloodlines with the Eldritch Heritage feats and would a wildblooded sorcerer be able to utilise a Robe of Arcane Heritage?"
His answer:
"No, they aren't. That's why they're not listed as bloodlines, but instead listed as archetypes. Things like Eldritch Heritage and that robe would work off of the associated non-mutated bloodline's rules, and would likely need your GM's adjudication to clear up problems should they arise. "
If we take James' opinion to be the correct ruling (which I am inclined to, but I understand some people question this), then technically there is no "wildblooded archetype", but rather "wildblooded archetypes" is a collective term for a group of archetypes that each apply to specific bloodlines. For instance, the sanguine archetype is an archetype specifically and only available to sorcerers with the undead bloodline.
Danggit Benly don't point out that I'm typing at way to early in the morning to actually think to check my sources.
Bump in hopes of more opinions or FAQ hits.