|
So, because this is the place I'm most likely to get an official ruling, I've got a character concept that is an Android that can remember it's previous Renewals. I'm looking for official clarification on whether or not this would be allowed (specifically for PFS).
Your elven blood runs particularly strong, granting you features far more elven than those of a typical aiuvarin. You may also have been raised among elves, steeped in your elven ancestors’ heritage. You gain the benefits of the elf heritage of your elven parent or ancestors. You typically can’t select a heritage that depends on or improves an elven feature you don’t have. For example, you couldn’t take the Ancient Elf heritage unless your non-elf ancestry also has a lifespan measured in multiple centuries. In these cases, at the GM’s discretion, you might gain a different benefit.
My reasoning is that while the individual souls of an Android are only alive for a century or so, they're both adults during that entire century and the body itself persists across multiple souls, and some knowledge could stick around.
But depending on whether or not you view the body as able to keep some traits changes whether Androids are "functionally immortal" or "only a hundred years old" and therefore not qualified for Ancient Elf.The concept, of course, is also that she remembers the last ones, which is where the justification comes from.
I think as soon as you're applying Auivarin to a non-biological ancestry, you're in "ask the GM" territory.
This is basically the same thing as "you can be a Dhampir Leshy, how does that work?" for which the answer has been "figure it out with the GM" for several years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, because this is the place I'm most likely to get an official ruling, I've got a character concept that is an Android that can remember it's previous Renewals. I'm looking for official clarification on whether or not this would be allowed (specifically for PFS).
Yeah, it's ask your DM. It's also not the PFS section, so you're unlikely to get an official clarification on what works there here unless they've already covered this in their rulings.
|
I think with the remaster they moved the dial to it generally being allowable in a lot of cases. Ancient Elf was pretty much the most hotly argued atavism pre-remaster, and they picked specifically that one to explain it with.
An android or a poppet or a leshy doesn't die of old age. I would say that's close enough to qualify.
As a GM you can have a different opinion, think it's silly, and not allow it in your home game. After all, it's your prerogative to enforce the limits of your taste.
But for PFS I'd say it's okay to do. There, individual GMs are not supposed to start inventing their own extra character building restrictions beyond what campaign leadership has published.
|
|
Yeah, it's ask your DM. It's also not the PFS section, so you're unlikely to get an official clarification on what works there here unless they've already covered this in their rulings.
Sure, but since it's a rules question about whether something is within the rules as written is a broader question than simply a PFS question.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The culture of "rules" in PF2 is different from PF1. We simply do not get "official rulings" on things that are the GM's prerogative to rule on. Errata comes twice a year now (half as often for Lost Omens books) and PFS is a reasonable standard for "a reasonably strict ruling" if your GM has no idea.
Yeah, it's ask your DM. It's also not the PFS section, so you're unlikely to get an official clarification on what works there here unless they've already covered this in their rulings.Sure, but since it's a rules question about whether something is within the rules as written is a broader question than simply a PFS question.
#1 AGAIN, it's an 'ask your DM' kind of question without a strict ruling [by design it seems]. #2 Second, what is allowed in PFS isn't a straight rules question as they have their own houserules that sometimes differ from what the regular rules say. In essence, PFS is your DM for 'ask your DM' questions.
For both reasons, asking what PFS allows should be asked in that section since here you'll find people, like myself here, that would be happy to answer you but has NO idea what the rules are in PFS while I assume people that frequent the PFS section have a better understanding of PFS. Even if it WAS a question with a clear RAW answer, I wouldn't be able to say if it "would be allowed (specifically for PFS)", as they do their own thing and often add/remove/alter various things from the actual rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I looked in the PFS Additional Resources: Character Options for PFS on this web site. PFS has already made a houserule for Elf Atavism under Lost Omens Character Guide.
"The design and development teams have clarified that the ancient elf heritage (page 25) requires an elven lifespan (a feature that half-elves do not have) and thus cannot be selected by half-elves using the Elf Atavism feat (Core Rulebook 58), only by full elves. Clarifying text has been added to the errata for this book."
Then you add from the Player Core PFS section that the states "The “aiuvarin” and “half-elf” traits are considered interchangeable". This would mean until/unless it's updated, any character with the aiuvarin/half-elf trait wouldn't qualify for Elf Atavism [Ancient Elf].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's ask your DM. It's also not the PFS section, so you're unlikely to get an official clarification on what works there here unless they've already covered this in their rulings.Sure, but since it's a rules question about whether something is within the rules as written is a broader question than simply a PFS question.
Likely as close to an official answer available is here.
There is also the PFS forum since the PFS leaders take a lot of the role of higher level rule adjudication like this for character building. PFS GMs have the adjudication role for rulings on gameplay.
|
|
#1 AGAIN, it's an 'ask your DM' kind of question without a strict ruling [by design it seems]. #2 Second, what is allowed in PFS isn't a straight rules question as they have their own houserules that sometimes differ from what the regular rules say. In essence, PFS is your DM for 'ask your DM' questions.
1. It gives you fairly clear handholds for a lot of cases. Does the ancestry measure its lifespan in centuries? Then you're good. Does the lifespan not live long enough? Then clearly no. Is the ancestry effectively immortal? Then you can reasonably conclude that that's even more than measuring in centuries.
2. This means that an individual table GM isn't allowed to pile on additional restrictions of their own making. The only restrictions that matter are the PFS ones. Which is a relevant thing to say, given the OP's questions!
Ok, I looked in the PFS Additional Resources: Character Options for PFS on this web site. PFS has already made a houserule for Elf Atavism under Lost Omens Character Guide.
"The design and development teams have clarified that the ancient elf heritage (page 25) requires an elven lifespan (a feature that half-elves do not have) and thus cannot be selected by half-elves using the Elf Atavism feat (Core Rulebook 58), only by full elves. Clarifying text has been added to the errata for this book."
Then you add from the Player Core PFS section that the states "The “aiuvarin” and “half-elf” traits are considered interchangeable". This would mean until/unless it's updated, any character with the aiuvarin/half-elf trait wouldn't qualify for Elf Atavism [Ancient Elf].
Yeah that clarification should probably be updated. It was made for the APG when it was released, and back then all half-elves were humans. PC1 Aiuvarin however can be any ancestry, not just humans, and the new text literally says that there are cases where you can use atavism to be ancient elf.
PFS rules clarifications pretty much always aim to clarify, not to alter rules. They don't want to contradict or overrule the books. But sometimes the books are unclear or missed an important question.
So, human-elf aiuvarin: yeah, still can't do ancient elf atavism. Dwarf-elf aiuvarin: doesn't contradict the arguments given in the clarification, and clearly matches the requirements in the PC1 version of the feat.
The text of "ancient elf" has the phrase "GM's discretion" in it, so you're never going to get an official ruling on whether your Dwelf or whatever can take it.
It's entirely within a GM's prerogative to insist that "only humans can be Auivarin or Dromaar" if they want. I believe that's the official standard of editorial (in terms of what people will appear in published materials.)
Generally explanations of "well, by RAW" are irrelevant to the way PF2 works. If your GM says an Android can be an Auivarin, then you can just ask them if you can be an Ancient Elf anyway. You shouldn't be playing an Android (an actual Rare ancestry) without checking with the GM, just like you shouldn't be playing a Poppet or a Conrasu without checking with the GM. So if you can ask the GM one question, you can ask them a second one too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm going to be 'that guy.'
How on earth do you justify a half-elven ANDROID? Like, was it constructed with a jewel in it's forehead and pointy ears? Or are you thinking more like an elf that was mauled horrendously and required android parts to keep living? Is it like a possession type thing where someone overwrote the android's programming with an elven soul?
I don't understand the story, the math ain't mathing.
Okay, I'm going to be 'that guy.'
How on earth do you justify a half-elven ANDROID? Like, was it constructed with a jewel in it's forehead and pointy ears? Or are you thinking more like an elf that was mauled horrendously and required android parts to keep living? Is it like a possession type thing where someone overwrote the android's programming with an elven soul?
I don't understand the story, the math ain't mathing.
The math works fine. Just start with android ancestry and apply the rules for aiuvarin versatile heritage. The biology is the mystery. If a player in my campaign wanted to play an aiuvarin android, I would insist on a backstory. However, I can imagine several backstories myself:
1) Space elves made an android. It resembles them more than it resembles humans. This version could be an ancient elf.
2) Space humans made an android in the shape of an elf with elf-like grace to act in a holovision show about elves. This version would not be ancient, but it could pass as an aiuvarin human.
3) An elvish technologist learns that androids live only a century. He experiments on a volunteer android to extend their life by giving them more elf traits. If the life extension is successful, this version could be an ancient elf.
4) An elf and an android fall in love and marry. They pray to the gods, or go to a temple for a miracle spell, and are granted an aiuvarin android as their offspring. This version could be an ancient elf.
5) The aiuvarin android forgot their origin in the distant past after dozens of renewals. This version might or might not be ancient.
It's justifiable that a GM would could "no" to certain ancestry/versatile heritage combinations because they don't see how it could work and aren't really that interested in making an exception.
Like the rules enable you to play a Poppet Changeling, but the GM can say "no, why would a Hag do that?" You could play a Skeleton Duskwalker, but the GM could say "absolutely not, Pharasma would never allow someone's second chance to be as one of the undead." Likewise someone could play a Ganzi Conrasu, but a GM might take issue with mixing the elemental essence of an Aeon and a Protean like that (of course this could also be a good reason that this character is interesting.)
But if you and your GM have an understanding of how this works, then that should inform the answer to the OP's question.
After all the rules for Versatile Heritages say:
Your GM may place other restrictions on which ancestries can use a given versatile heritage based on the story and setting.
.
|
Yeah, I'm with Keirine here, to me this is concept stinks of nonsense where the player is just trying to abuse the Ancient Elf benefit that should never have been printed in the first place.
Everyone else gave the correct answer being, "ask your GM" so the only advice you can really get here is the opinions of others who play the game, and since that's the case my 2c is that this is silly bunk nonsense and wouldn't fly, it seems clear to me that you're just trying to flex in more free Class Feats than you'd normally get without any downsides, not to seem confrontational but I don't buy the "flavor" you say that you're aiming for here at all.
A heritage being a class feat equivalent is definitely on the strong end of what a heritage can give you. Certainly, "[class] dedication" is among the weakest class feats in the game in a lot of cases, but this saves you from having to spend an actual class feat on the dedication you want in order to take other feats in the archetype.
I would think that "people are trying to finagle their way into ancient elf" is a good indication that you should just consider running a free archetype game.
|
|
It seems clear to me that you're just trying to flex in more free Class Feats than you'd normally get without any downsides, not to seem confrontational but I don't buy the "flavor" you say that you're aiming for here at all.
How on earth do you justify a half-elven ANDROID?
Honestly? I don't. But it's mechanically legal and I think that's funny and neat. Android Versatile Heritage is a cool concept to me. I figure somewhere along the way she just Renewed into an elven form. The concept of an android that remembers its Renewals is one I've had since back in 1e, when I thought that they Renewed whenever they died. It's
Isn't PFS all about hierarchy? You can ask the venture captain general or something that manages your continent.
The Venture Officer I asked said "I don't make the rules, so my opinion doesn't matter".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making binding rulings on what is a legal character and what isn't simply is not what Venture Agents/Venture Lieutenants/Venture Captains do, at all.
When the rules of Pathfinder are ambiguous, and there isn't a specific campaign rule addressing it, the game runs by the best understanding of the GM running it.
This does mean that if you find a case of "I'm not sure if this is legal", it is a character idea that would be better used in a regular home game where the single persistent GM can give you a ruling, instead of in a campaign where you'd be putting it in front of many GMs, some of whom may read it as not a legal character.
Hmm... considering that androids are essentially synthetic humanoids with downloadable souls, it's not impossible for a faulty backup program to result in a few traits, quirks, or memories carrying over from one renewal to the next. It should definitely be possible to justify it, thematically speaking. I'm just not sure if the mechanics would line up, myself; the character would be old and young at the same time, so to speak, if they renewed but kept a few traits from the last soul.
It's also worth mentioning that "most" androids willingly undergo renewal, which implies that not all do. Maybe you could use that to justify it, as a forced renewal gone wrong?
You could call them Dr Blue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't PFS all about hierarchy? You can ask the venture captain general or something that manages your continent.The Venture Officer I asked said "I don't make the rules, so my opinion doesn't matter".
I would interpret that to mean 'work with your table's GM on this.'
Not in PFS. One of the key principles for PFS is "it should be allowed at all tables or at no tables". You need to be able to play the same character with groups in different cities or countries. So the legality of your character build can't depend on what the local GM thinks of it, it has to be based on standard rules.
At home games it's up to the GM but the official PFS call was already posted upthread by graystone, since that's what you're "specifically" asking about
No, he posted the outdated ruling from the Lost Omens Character Guide, which said:
But that was in ~2000, and in the old book. Back then, half-elves were always humans, so never had al elven lifespan. But the future errata has arrived (half a year ago) in Player Core 1. PC1 prints both Elf Atavism and Ancient Elf in the same book, and Elf Atavism spells out the new requirement, which is "a lifespan measured in centuries". So a dwarf, while not living as long as a full elf, can still be half-ancient-elf.
And for PFS, the rule is that if an option appears with the same name in a remaster book, that is to be considered binding errata.
So the old clarification Graystone cited is no longer relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It surprises me that PFS hasn't put restrictions on versatile heritages, as far as I could find. I guess PFS locks a bunch of ancestries behind a boon, but there are certainly combinations I wouldn't allow in my home game.
|
|
It surprises me that PFS hasn't put restrictions on versatile heritages, as far as I could find. I guess PFS locks a bunch of ancestries behind a boon, but there are certainly combinations I wouldn't allow in my home game.
Well in general PFS aims to allow as much as possible. So "silly" is not a reason to disallow a combination. Typically stuff only gets disallowed if it's actively problematic, such as:
- totally clashes with the theme of the Society (like classes that require you to be illiterate)
- mechanics that just don't work in a play format like PFS (like some feats about building up a network of contacts over a long span of time in a specific area)
- "social splash damage"/"yuck", stuff that's not really good for play in a public area or with people you don't know, such as cannibalism related feats
- evil things, like deities that require unholy sanctification
- broken/unbalanced mechanics
- very complicated or time consuming mechanics, like PF1 Sacred Geometry