| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Evidence" is too strong a word for what I have.
My feeling is that it would be the first class path that is incompatible with a heritage. That's the kind of thing they're likely not keen on adding.
My feeling is that the power of such an option is overblown.
My feeling is that I would not at all be surprised if they faq'd it as exempt.
I don't think there are any combinations that are outright broken. But something like Twin Takedown with sneak attack plus Cry of Destruction can add up to a lot of damage in the right circumstances.
Not bad.
The comparable build would be Precision Ranger with Cleric archetype. Only doing 1d8 precision damage instead of the 2d6 twice from sneak attack. But has better HP and better weapons.
There are enough permutations (and that number will continue to increase) to be cautious about a blanket go ahead. If there is a broken combo, now or in the future, one of our legion of forum-goers will find it. Better to say "check with your GM" now, just in case.
Well, have any of them found a really good triple class build yet that comes together at about level 10 or 12? Again, not trying to say that there aren't any, I am just not aware of them.
My opinion is that triple class builds end up spread too thin. Anything that a triple class build can do can be done almost as well with a double class build and will have room for more power in other areas as well. For example, the Ranger/Cleric above would have room left to pick up Disrupt Prey by level 6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Evidence" is too strong a word for what I have.
My feeling is that it would be the first class path that is incompatible with a heritage. That's the kind of thing they're likely not keen on adding.
You feel that way even though they have already also added incompatible options of other types?
For example, if you choose the Anvil Dwarf heritage, you can't also choose the Artisan background because you can't take the same feat twice (unless it specifically says you can) and both of those options grant the Specialty Crafting feat.
I would argue that specialty crafting should have the language to allow you to take it more than once.
I'm genuinely surprised it doesn't.
For example, if you choose the Anvil Dwarf heritage, you can't also choose the Artisan background because you can't take the same feat twice (unless it specifically says you can) and both of those options grant the Specialty Crafting feat.
Or you end up with two copies of the feat, one of which "adds no value" because you can't chose a different feat (you just straight gain the feat both times) but there's no special text for having the feat twice.
(But yes, I too, would say that it probably should have special text).
And, IIRC, this isn't the only feat that can be gained multiple times in this manner. I recall seeing another such one (via dedication?) but can't remember what feat it was.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I think about it more, I think an Anvil Dwarf being unable to take the Artisan background *must* be an oversight.
If I had a player make such a character I would give them both, and probably just handwave the lack of special text and give them another specialty.
Denying that combo fails my "look the player in eye with a straight face" rule.
For example, if you choose the Anvil Dwarf heritage, you can't also choose the Artisan background because you can't take the same feat twice (unless it specifically says you can) and both of those options grant the Specialty Crafting feat.Or you end up with two copies of the feat, one of which "adds no value" because you can't chose a different feat (you just straight gain the feat both times) but there's no special text for having the feat twice.
(But yes, I too, would say that it probably should have special text).
And, IIRC, this isn't the only feat that can be gained multiple times in this manner. I recall seeing another such one (via dedication?) but can't remember what feat it was.
There was this thread not too long ago about getting duplicate skill feat effects. Duplicate Feats at 1st Level
Which is probably the strongest argument for the interpretation that Ancient Elf and Eldritch Trickster would both have to give you the same dedication feat - and would have to be a magical type archetype.
There was this thread not too long ago about getting duplicate skill feat effects. Duplicate Feats at 1st Level
That's exactly the thread I was thinking of.
The lizardfolk/combat climber example is a better example. Combat Climber can't stack, so if someone came to me with a cliff lizardfolk that really wanted that particular background, I would feel compelled to warn them that they'll have a dead feat, but otherwise allow it.
Disallowing story based on some random little mechanical rules is very much not my modus operandi, and it's not how building characters is described by the devs.
It can be argued that, mechanically, they *should* select a different heritage so they're not wasting character resources, but it's not up to me to say no to a concept a player would be willing to sacrifice to achieve.
It will be rare that these things will be combined, but I don't think they should *at all* set a precedent about other combos being ruled invalid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much that.
Now, if something gave you a specific dedication, then you would be able to stack them simply because it was not something you could select; the wording says you cannot select one, though that doesn't mean you can't acquire one specifically granted to you, since it's not a dedication that was selected, but one that was granted with no selection or choice.
However, per RAW, if you could select the dedication (Ancient Elf lets you pick any 2nd level dedication, Eldritch Trickster lets you pick a 2nd level caster dedication), then you can't get anything out of it.
I'd personally allow it at my table though, since it opens up some options to begin with, but does require further investment if they hope to make it work out in the endgame.
Actually it does work by this reasoning, Eldritch Trickster doesn't make you select a multiclass dedication feat at all, it just tells you to pick a class, and then awards you the dedication for it "as a bonus feat" which specifically puts it outside the bounds of a feat you select.
Since the special line doesn't say anything about gaining, and only about selecting, by RAW it weasels straight through, though whether that was RAI or not is questionable.
Edit: wait no, it tells you to "choose a multiclass archetype..." but still not a dedication feat!?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I think we should get out of the business of policing why a player does something and focus on whether or not they can do the thing.
The game is a game, optimizing is part of game being game, it shouldn't be about punishing the motivation, it should be about having rules that don't break when game is game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that multitalented is impossible to take at the point of character creation. It’s inclusion of additional clarification makes sense.
At character creation there is no possible way (except in this unique and precise combination) to otherwise have an additional archetype, so the writers, as we’ve seen hundreds of times in 2e, didn’t consider all of their own content.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disallowing story based on some random little mechanical rules is very much not my modus operandi...In my view, I'm not disallowing the player's story, I'm asking them to add to that story - and you, if you let them take a background that would give them a duplicate feat that the rules don't let them have so they just and you just call that a "dead feat" and move on, are effectively punishing the player for the story they have chosen for their character.
They could be an excellent climber and also something else, and the rules even say that's what they should do, but you're letting them miss out because they didn't say the right thing.
I think you forgot the part where I said I'd give it to them if the really wanted it after warning them.
In your case you're going: "I understand you want to be a Cliffscale Lizardfolk who trained for the Ruby Phoenix Tournament, but one of those two has got to go because the rules say one element of each clashes. Why not be a Wetlander instead?"
Both the Cliffscale heritage and Ruby Phoenix Enthusiast have other features than the feat, and lore reasons besides, but you would prevent someone from taking both even if they wanted to accept the cost of a skill feat.
Back to the larger topic of whether or not the rules allow a character to be an Ancient Elf Eldritch Trickster: Someone recently brought the Multitalented feat to my attention. This feat gives us an example of what kind wording would be present in these features if they were meant to overwrite the special limitation on dedication feats:
"You gain a 2nd-level multiclass dedication feat (for more about multiclass archetypes, see page 219), even if you normally couldn’t take another dedication feat until you take more feats from your current archetype." (Bold added for emphasis.)
Multitalented is also a Feat and falls within the existing framework for feats and what they can or can't do. It's also gained at level 9.
Heritages and Class Paths are taken effectively simultaneously and represent lore and character intent.
I honestly don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the intent is that Ancient Elves can be Eldritch Tricksters with two different dedications, at the cost of things like scaling elemental resistances or Dex to damage.
Yeah, I *definitely* think your interpretation is on firmer RAW ground. I don't think there's an adequate reading of the rules that makes obtaining both dedications possible without potentially introducing other side effects.
I just feel so confident that it's an oversight that in my games I would have zero problems allowing the two options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you forgot the part where I said I'd give it to them if the really wanted it after warning them.
In your case you're going: "I understand you want to be a Cliffscale Lizardfolk who trained for the Ruby Phoenix Tournament, but one of those two has got to go because the rules say one element of each clashes. Why not be a Wetlander instead?"
Both the Cliffscale heritage and Ruby Phoenix Enthusiast have other features than the feat, and lore reasons besides, but you would prevent someone from taking both even if they wanted to accept the cost of a skill feat.
I do agree with Themetricsystem in that there is no point in taking both Ancient Elf and Rogue Eldritch Trickster other than to have three classes worth of feats and abilities to choose from. Ancient Elf literally gives nothing else. Even Elf ancestry feats that interact with it only require being over 100 years old - they don't actually have a prerequisite on the Ancient Elf heritage.
So if a GM did want to rule against the triple class cheese, a player could still play an Elf Rogue magic user that is several centuries old. They could pick a different Elf heritage without losing anything other than the triple class options.
----------
However, I feel that the core rules of this system have legendary proficiency on fortitude saves against cheese. I would actually allow a character to have both of the archetype dedications of their choice. I would also warn players against trying the triple class cheese build - not because I thought it would break the game, but because I think it is a sub-par build.
So far the one specific cheese build that has been presented has some serious drawbacks. It is so MAD that it makes a PF1 Monk stare in awe. It is a front-line melee fighter with light armor, low HP, and basic weapons. In return, if all of the stars align (hunted enemy that is also flat-footed, both of which will have to be set up on the previous turn), then you have the opportunity once per combat to do an above the curve amount of damage. Assuming all of the attacks land.
So... What is this character going to do for the rest of the combat? And how is it applying flat-footed? Feint? Are we also going to pump CHA in addition to pumping DEX for AC, CON for a few more needed hit points, STR for attack accuracy, and WIS for the spell we want to cast? Or are we instead going deep into enemy lines to get flanking?
It is literally spread too thin and trying to do too much, all focused (pun intended) on one round of combat.
And that is what I am expecting from any other triple class cheese build. Massively MAD, and focused on one niche thing at the expense of literally everything else in the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to go this route. It reminds me of the old Fighter/Magic-user/Thief from AD&D.
Not all cases of someone thinking they can do something that someone else thinks the rules say they can't do are because of ambiguous wording - some are because people are effectively ignoring the wording or effectively inserting words that aren't there in order to reach what they wish the wording actually said.
Fair point. People can argue that all dwarves have a movement rate of 600. That doesn't mean the rules are ambiguous on the subject. But such arguments don't typically last 70+ postings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People can argue that all dwarves have a movement rate of 600. That doesn't mean the rules are ambiguous on the subject.
I mean, they do, if you pick the right units. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suspicion is that as far as RAW is concerned, the "you can take the Trickster racket but don't gain the Dedication feat" crowd are correct. I also believe that you would be able to gain the bonus Dedication feat once you had enough feats for the first Dedication.
As far as whether it should be allowed... Rogue rackets are pretty strong - to take Eldritch Trickster, you are giving up the almighty Thief, and I'm not sure there are many Dedications that are going to do more for a rogue than Thief does out of the box.
It's maybe a little cheesy, but it's hardly "letting the powergamers win if you don't ban it" or whatever doomsaying like that. I'd probably allow it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People can argue that all dwarves have a movement rate of 600. That doesn't mean the rules are ambiguous on the subject.I mean, they do, if you pick the right units. ;)
A dwarf's speed goes up dramatically if they first step off a cliff... All dwarves can get to a speed of 200 if they fall far enough. ;)
A dwarf's speed goes up dramatically if they first step off a cliff... All dwarves can get to a speed of 200 if they fall far enough. ;)People can argue that all dwarves have a movement rate of 600. That doesn't mean the rules are ambiguous on the subject.I mean, they do, if you pick the right units. ;)
One way to resolve these conflicts would be to go with the idea that you can't voluntarily take a feat a second time, but you can be forced to do so, as is the case with the combination of lizardfolk heritage and background that both give you the same feat.
In the case of multiclass dedication feats for ancient elf heritage and eldritch trickster rogue racket, the second time you select a multiclass dedication feat, you run into the rule "You can't take another dedication feat until you take two feats in this dedication", and there is no text in the elf heritage or rogue racket exempting you from this rule. As a result, the only multiclass dedication feat you qualify for is the one you already took, so you are forced to take it again for no benefit. Most players would see this outcome as undesirable and reconsider their choices.
Saying that taking the same feat again in this case is not allowed is nonsensical, as it creates an abort condition in the character creation rules -- and that greatly offends my sensibilities as a computer programmer.
The only reasonable alternative to this approach would be to ignore that rule from the text of the multiclass dedication feats and take any other multiclass dedication feat that you would otherwise qualify for. I am not sure that it is all that overpowered, as it requires very specific conditions to occur -- and the Paizo folks already limited this combination to true elves, not even allowing half-elves to take it via the usual means by which they can access elf heritages.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't retrain your 2nd level feat choice into a feat you couldn't have taken at 2nd level - so why would the feat you couldn't have taken at 1st level somehow "kick in" at 1st level once you hit a higher level?
Because the conditions that prevent the option from working are no longer there, but the thing that gives it to you is still there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One way to resolve these conflicts would be to go with the idea that you can't voluntarily take a feat a second time, but you can be forced to do so...The rules do not make a different case for whether or not something was "chosen" or "forced" - they just say you can't have the same thing more than once without it explicitly saying you can.
Further, you are not being "forced" to take any element which is variable - you are choosing it. The player is making a choice when they select Ancient Elf. They are also making a choice when they attempt to select the Eldritch Trickster racket with the same character.
The way to resolve this conflict is to do as the rules say and don't take both.
Taking Ancient Elf and then Eldritch Trickster are both legal choices. There is nothing in either choice that requires you to confirm that later required choices won't lead to problems.
In this case, no problem comes up until you (later) attempt to select the 2nd multiclass dedication feat from one of these options. At that point, either the restriction on taking the 2nd multiclass dedication applies (in which case you are forced to repeat your original selection, as all other options are barred) or it doesn't (in which case you can take any other multiclass dedication feat that you qualify for). If you get to the point of selecting a multiclass dedication feat and can't take anything, even an undesirable option, that is an "abort" condition or "crash" in the character creation process. It is one thing for a player to decide that he doesn't like the consequences of taking redundant options and choose not to do so, and quite another to get to the point of being required to choose from only illegal options and have no idea what to do. If your friend writes code this way, he is a poor programmer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking Ancient Elf and then Eldritch Trickster are both legal choices.Each is legal individually, but they are not legal together. While that's not because of anything either feature says on its own - it is still true, because the game elements those features interact with do state explicitly that there's a problem.
It's actually standard in game rules that the options you select have an impact on what other options remain valid selections, so I'm really baffled by people that suggest something strange is happening when whichever option you pick first, Ancient Elf or Eldritch Trickster, "greys out" the other one (along with all the other things which can't be taken as a result of what was taken).
This is a bit of a [Citation Needed], I think.
At the very least, the conflict prevents you from gaining the feat that either Ancient Elf or Eldritch Trickster would give you, no question there.
However, to then say you can't select the option at all makes no sense to me and doesn't seem to be supported anywhere in the rules.
Unless you can find a rule that says "you can't select an option if you can't take a feat granted by that option"? Especially since Eldritch Trickster does things other than grant you a feat. It seems much more logical that you simply don't get the feat than that ancient elves are completely incapable of selecting Eldritch Trickster.
To give another example, if there was a Background that granted Shield Block, would you say that Fighters are forbidden from taking that Background?
That seems like an implausible interpretation of the rules, to me.