These don't have the same name, there's no argument that they stack; the higher of the two, yes.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Intresting...
Although I agree with avr in the first place; it would generally mean the higher of the two...
You could argue that The fighter does get the stack from warpriest, just not the other way around.
Imagine you're a 8 warpriest / 8 fighter.
The warpirests class feature, clearly just counts the warpriest's level (8)
But the advanced weapon training Focused Weapon on the other hand... treats his fighter level as his warpriest level. This means that any level in fighter gets treated like a warpriest level... but what does that make the actual warpriest levels?
Still warpriest levels... thus... 8 + 8 = 16?
I'll admit it's not solid though... and you'd have to discuss this with your GM for sure.
But the advanced weapon training Focused Weapon on the other hand... treats his fighter level as his warpriest level. This means that any level in fighter gets treated like a warpriest level...
No it doesn't. It means you use your Fighter level instead of the Warpriest level the class feature would normally use. It does not say you treat your Fighter levels as Warpriest levels!
Paizo seems to love such kind of language, even though that prevents interesting combinations and often produces problems (they had to FAQ similar language to make multiclass Monks possible).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... that FAQ actually confirms such wording on abilities do stack. (being the monk's level + BAB from other sources get treated as BAB)
But the wording on the monk's flurry are just telling you to treat the monk's BAB as full when calculating the BAB for your attacks with a flurry. It doesn't appear to have ever suggested you don't get BAB from other sources anyway; they seemed to have FAQ'd that to avoid misunderstandings... to me at least, the wording was already pretty clear.
Anyway, that's off-topic. Just to be clear; I do not fully 100% believe it stacks, as I already mentioned before, and still say this is up to a GM to decide... but Derklord, I do have to correct you.
You said:
No it doesn't. It means you use your Fighter level instead of the Warpriest level the class feature would normally use. It does not say you treat your Fighter levels as Warpriest levels!
Whilst in fact, the actual quote on focussed weapon is;
The fighter selects one weapon for which he has Weapon Focus and that belongs to the associated fighter weapon group. The fighter can deal damage with this weapon based on the damage of the warpriest’s sacred weaponACG class feature, treating his fighter level as his warpriest level. The fighter must have Weapon Focus with the selected weapon in order to choose this option.
... that FAQ actually confirms such wording on abilities do stack. (being the monk's level + BAB from other sources get treated as BAB)
Not without a general rule being made. They actually changed the wording of FoB via erratum to make it stack, exactly because it didn't before.
I do have to correct you.
On what part exactly? I paraphrased it, but I see no functional difference. Or did you not see the esses that I bolded?
Not without a general rule being made. They actually changed the wording of FoB via erratum to make it stack, exactly because it didn't before.
Oh, the wording was different before from the wording in the FAQ? I hadn't checked, I just went with the wording in the FAQ.
I do have to correct you.On what part exactly? I paraphrased it, but I see no functional difference. Or did you not see the esses that I bolded?
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding comes from; you "paraphrased" the wording, then gave the exact wording, but added just those esses. This caused me to think you thought your "paraphrased" sentence was what the actual wording was, and the sentence with the addes esses (which was closer to the wording as far as I could read) was a paraphrased version of what I had written down.
Sorry about that, didn't realize the paraphrasing.
But the paraphrasing is the problem in this case. It's not paraphrased; it's a completely different meaning. "instead of" and "as" don't mean the same, afterall. One replaces, the other pretents to be.
On animal companions, effective levels of a class are treated as druid levels. (yes, I'm going for easy reference to another thread we're both talking in) And actual druid levels stack there too.
Interesting Conundrum to consider with this....
If a player playing an Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest with a few levels in Fighter takes the Advanced Weapon Training feat as their 6th level Warpriest Bonus Feat and chose Focused Weapon, would it use their actual Warpriest level as their Fighter level as their Warpriest level or would it use their actual Fighter level as their Warpriest level? or would such a character actually stack the two in this scenario?
Focused Weapon does not specifically call out stacking with similar abilities, therefore it doesn't stack. The player would have two different sacred weapon damage pools they could pull from, and both may not even apply to the same weapons.
No—unless an ability specifically says it stacks with similar abilities (such as an assassin's sneak attack), or adds in some way based on the character's total class levels (such as improved uncanny dodge), the abilities don't stack and you have to use them separately. Therefore, cleric channeling doesn't stack with paladin channeling, necromancer channeling, oracle of life channeling, and so on.
Yes, we established at the very start of this thread it's likely the abilities do not stack. You'd have 2;
Warpriest's sarcret weapon, counting only warpriest levels.Fighter's advanced weapon training (focussed weapon), that either counts only fighter levels, or counts both the fighter and the warpriest levels on account of "fighter" levels counting as "warpriest" levels... thereby making all levels warpriest levels.
I am more and more eager to hear an actual compelling argument for or against it.