Ancient elf gives you a multiclass dedication feat, which is pretty slick, but I don't see anything exempting you from the dedication rule; are they just totally shut out from things like avenger or spellshot?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancient elf gives you a multiclass dedication feat, which is pretty slick, but I don't see anything exempting you from the dedication rule; are they just totally shut out from things like avenger or spellshot?
Yep. An elf who focused on a particular aspect to the point of having a class archetype would not represent being ancient by having dipped their toes into another class.
Ancient Elf is really good, but it does run into conflicts with things like class archetypes or free archetype rules. You can talk to your GM about making it even stronger than it already is, but usually the answer is just "don't take Ancient Elf with those options".
Ancient elf gives you a multiclass dedication feat, which is pretty slick, but I don't see anything exempting you from the dedication rule; are they just totally shut out from things like avenger or spellshot?
Unclear RAW. I say to allow it because lord knows class archetypes do not need the nerf. There hasn't been a class archtype that felt good since warpriest, and warpriest did it by just being a subclass that doesn't eat your class feats and cause dedication lockout.
Well, I guess the remaster runelord was pretty interesting, and maybe worth it - heavy restrictions but plausibly enough raw blasting power for something interesting - until they nerfed it's staff into the ground right after release.
I guess war mage is fine too, but I wouldn't call it powerful or anything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.
It's unclear because during character creation, at level one, you can select both a dedication feat and take a class archetype - for some class archetypes, some aren't gained at level one without a dedication feat (possibly - it's actually a bit unclear on this, maybe all of them are!)
The dedication feat trait from ancient elf states: "Once you take a dedication feat, you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype."
Notably, this does not prevent taking the class archetype as the class archetype is not a dedication feat, and doesn't even give one at level one. A level one character with rogue dedication from ancient elf and the runelord class archetype has not violated any sort of dedication lockout (yet).
It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself. Now you have that ancient elf dedication feat saying you can't take more dedication feats, and the class archetype saying "If you select this ability, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level"
So you have one thing telling you that you can't select your class dedication feat, and one thing telling you that you *must*. Which one wins? IDK man. If we're gonna go by specific > general that the class archetype wins, but things really aren't very clear. Maybe you just don't get the class archetype dedication feat - some class archetypes are functional without it, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself.
Causing an invalid character doesn't mean that the rules are not clear.
They don't work, and should be houseruled in some way so that they do.
But that is not the same as having rules that are not clear. Unclear rules are when two different people can read the same rules text and parse the sentences or game terms or examples in different ways and end up with different ruling results.
For example, Ready allowing you to prepare to use one action as a reaction. Does that mean one simple action, or are single-action activities such as 1-action spells allowed? That is an unclear rule.
Ancient Elf not removing the restriction on taking additional dedication feats is not unclear.
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself.Causing an invalid character doesn't mean that the rules are not clear.
Well that’s the issue, the character is only invalid upon leveling up, not at level one. So what happens in response to you leveling your way into invalidity is pretty unclear.
Well that’s the issue, the character is only invalid upon leveling up, not at level one. So what happens in response to you leveling your way into invalidity is pretty unclear.Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself.Causing an invalid character doesn't mean that the rules are not clear.
No its not. The Class Archetype initial feats are Dedications. You're not allowed to take another Dedication at level 2 if you took a multiclass Dedication via Ancient Elf at level 1. So you can't take the Class archetype.
The only possible way to get into an illegal character situation is either if you ignore that, or you get a class archetype feature at level 1 while also taking a multiclass dedication at level 1, and in that case you know the character is going to be illegal already and thus you're knowingly doing something that will be illegal.
This is not vague or confusing at all. It's perfectly clear.
Well that’s the issue, the character is only invalid upon leveling up, not at level one. So what happens in response to you leveling your way into invalidity is pretty unclear.Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself.Causing an invalid character doesn't mean that the rules are not clear.
No its not. The Class Archetype initial feats are Dedications. You're not allowed to take another Dedication at level 2 if you took a multiclass Dedication via Ancient Elf at level 1. So you can't take the Class archetype.
The only possible way to get into an illegal character situation is either if you ignore that, or you get a class archetype feature at level 1 while also taking a multiclass dedication at level 1, and in that case you know the character is going to be illegal already and thus you're knowingly doing something that will be illegal.
This is not vague or confusing at all. It's perfectly clear.
It is vague and confusing. There's nothing that prohibits a level one character with a class archetype, there's no rule in the game that prevents it (if you believe there to be, please cite it). It's a completely legal character build, and one that a new player could easily make not knowing that it becomes illegal at level 2 just by wanting to play a guardian warmage or whatever. Or maybe the campaign was only supposed to be a first level oneshot and got extended.
So you're left with the question of how to resolve the level up. And there's no straightforward unambiguous answer between the "cannot take any more dedications" and "must take this one dedication" we both got at level one.
(On a practical level there's no reason not to let it work of course, and just have to escape both dedications before taking a new one - not like class archtypes are more powerful than the base class or anything)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancient Elf not removing the restriction on taking additional dedication feats is not unclear.
You can select two character options that provide you with feats that are both otherwise mutually exclusive with each other.
There's no defined rules mechanism for resolving the inconsistency and we've already seen multiple opinions on how the interaction should be resolved.
That's like, the literal definition of unclear.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is vague and confusing. There's nothing that prohibits a level one character with a class archetype, there's no rule in the game that prevents it (if you believe there to be, please cite it). It's a completely legal character build, and one that a new player could easily make not knowing that it becomes illegal at level 2 just by wanting to play a guardian warmage or whatever. Or maybe the campaign was only supposed to be a first level oneshot and got extended.
So you're left with the question of how to resolve the level up. And there's no straightforward unambiguous answer between the "cannot take any more dedications" and "must take this one dedication" we both got at level one.
You're clutching at straws here. It's a problem by level 2 even if you talk yourself into believing it's borderline admissible at level 1. So as a GM it's totally fair to say that given that situation, you're also not going to allow it at level 1.
I mean, if the point was that you wanted to play a really old elf, you can also do that with a different heritage, doesn't have to be ancient elf. You can just write in your backstory that you're really old. If it's the mechanical effects of having both things at the same time, the GM can just make a decision to say "well, the rules strongly indicate they don't want you taking so many dedications all at once".
Or, the GM can allow it. Based on the First Rule that's also a totally RAW thing to do (just about anything is..) But I think it's just not reasonable to say that this some kind of unresolvable paradox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're clutching at straws here. It's a problem by level 2 even if you talk yourself into believing it's borderline admissible at level 1. So as a GM it's totally fair to say that given that situation, you're also not going to allow it at level 1.It is vague and confusing. There's nothing that prohibits a level one character with a class archetype, there's no rule in the game that prevents it (if you believe there to be, please cite it). It's a completely legal character build, and one that a new player could easily make not knowing that it becomes illegal at level 2 just by wanting to play a guardian warmage or whatever. Or maybe the campaign was only supposed to be a first level oneshot and got extended.
So you're left with the question of how to resolve the level up. And there's no straightforward unambiguous answer between the "cannot take any more dedications" and "must take this one dedication" we both got at level one.
That’s definitely a reasonable resolution. Unfortunately it doesn’t solve the problem of the rules being unclear, given that it’s complete homebrew. There’s nothing in the rules that prohibits a level one ancient elf runelord, if you think there is I invite you to quote the text saying this.
|
|
What's the homebrew part? Every RPG has edge cases in the rules, or situations that just aren't quite covered by them. Then the GM makes a ruling that they find reasonable, fair, and fun.
RAW has your back on this:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn't work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
If there's a rule where you find that the wording has problematic repercussions (which this is a nice example of), then RAW is that you should work with your group to find a good solution. Sticking to the printed rule and insisting that it's all broken, that's actually not what RAW is telling you to do.
So what's a "good" solution? That's ultimately a GM decision (see "The GM has the final say" rule). The GM might decide to stick with the apparent game design tendency of not too many archetypes at once. Or the GM might find that's not really so important, cuz they're running free archetype anyway, and just let you do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Before creating a character with a class archetype, a player needs to read how class archetypes work" is a reasonable expectation without specific text talking about it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
NGL I'm a little surprised at how hostile the reaction to the OP is here. This is like, pretty standard weird rules quirk territory.
By your own wording, they are "mutually exclusive" - by definition therefore, you cannot select both of them. You have to pick one or the other.
You missed the 'otherwise' there which is kind of the point. 'Obviously I shouldn't allow my players to stack them' is a perfectly reasonable ruling, but so is 'obviously this is an exception to the norm since the feat is packaged with the option.'
Either are fine at your own table, but OP is just pointing out the lack of explicitness here, hence the thread being in rules discussion and not advice.
"Before creating a character with a class archetype, a player needs to read how class archetypes work" is a reasonable expectation without specific text talking about it.
Well sure, but reading it doesn't answer the OP's question. That's kind of the whole point.
For example, Ready allowing you to prepare to use one action as a reaction. Does that mean one simple action, or are single-action activities such as 1-action spells allowed? That is an unclear rule.
It's a tangent, and I agree with the actual point, but I might as well clear up confusion where I can. The rules are clear on this one.
Activities are a sub-type of action. A lot would break if that wasn't the case. To broadly summarize, everything in encounter mode must be an action, there's literally no other way to "do stuff," every desired player thing needs to be incorporated into one action or another.
"There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder rules have many minor contradictions, but this Ancient Elf and Class Archetype conflict is the first full paradox I have seen. A player can create a elf character with both a class archetype and a first-level Multiclass Dedication that is 100% legal at 1st level that automatically becomes a rules conflict at 2nd level. I am amused by the conundrum.
But I can't call the 2nd level character illegal under the rules. Pathfinder has several rules that oppose each other. A 10th-level wizard casts a cone-shaped Howling Blizzard on a group of 8th-level enemies and rolls 35 damage with a basic Reflex save. Yet the creatures that fail their save would take only 25 damage each because they are Ice Mummies with Resistance cold 10. Except that the wizard has the Overwhelming Energy spellshape feat and applied the spellshape before casting the spell, so the spell ignores up to 10 resistance to cold and the ice mummies take full damage. The rules for Resistances has no specific exception for Overwhelming Energy, so technically the Resistance rules and the Overwhelming Energy feat are in direct conflict with each other.
The Pathfinder designers knew that rules could come in conflict with each other, so they wrote the Specific Overrides General rule in the Rules Overview section of the Player Core.
Specific Overrides General
A core principle of Pathfinder is that specific rules override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use. For example, the rules state that when attacking a concealed creature, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check to determine if you hit. Flat checks don't benefit from modifiers, bonuses, or penalties, but an ability that's specifically designed to overcome concealment might override and alter this. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the general rules presented in this chapter, even if effects don't specifically say to.
This leaves two questions: which rule out of "Once you take a dedication feat, you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype," and "If you select this ability, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and you proceed normally afterward," is the specific and which is the general? And how does "override" apply.
I view the Class Archetype as more specific because it insists on a specific archetype. Thus, the Ancient Elf ignores the restriction against selecting a different dedication feat at 2nd level because the Class Archetype insists on that specific class-archetype dedication. But that is the only override. The character cannot take a 3rd dedication feat until the character has taken both 2 more feats in the Ancient Elf multiclass archetype and 2 more feats in the Class Archetype.
And oddly, double archetypes came up in my Strength of Thousands campaign. The Strength of Thousands Player's Guide recommends giving free archetype of Druid Multiclass or Wizard Multiclass to each player character. I approved the free archetypes, and relaxed the restriction so that it could be any archetype that grants spellcasting ability. My elder daughter built the rogue Roshan, who has the Eldritch Trickster racket granting Sorcerer Multiclass Archetype and took the Gelid Shard archetype as her free archetype. I was willing to ignore the rule against a 2nd dedications in the free archetype, but she pointed out that that was not necessary. Gelid Shard archetype does not have a dedication! Gelid Shard archetype is from the Archetype Artifacts section of Treasure Trove, page 185 and its 2nd-level feat is First Frost, which does not call itself a dedication. Page 182 explains, "Archetype artifacts are powerful items that grant access to archetype feats linked to the artifact. Once an archetype artifact is invested, it can’t be removed or uninvested by normal means. Gaining possession of an archetype artifact and investing it gives you access to its related archetype feats in the same way that taking the dedication feat for a standard archetype allows you to choose its feats whenever you gain a class feat." This is the wording from the Remastered Treasure Trove.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NGL I'm a little surprised at how hostile the reaction to the OP is here.
It causes me a cognitive disconnect when people use the wrong words for things.
These rules are not unclear. The options are incompatible. That is a very different accusation.
By choosing Ancient Elf it does indeed lock out of other options at level 2. That is very clear just by reading the rules for the dedication feats.
By choosing a Class Archetype, it limits what options you can choose at level 2. That is also very clear just by reading the rules for Class Archetypes.
By choosing both of those options, you are very explicitly and deliberately crafting yourself a footgun that is going to go off when you level up to level 2. There is nothing hidden here. There is nothing confusing about these rules. You shouldn't be surprised when you get to the level up process and find that there are zero options available to you. Because the rules are not unclear.
How to resolve this option incompatibility is not defined. That is left up to the GM and the table to decide on. Which can be as simple as 'don't choose both of those options at level 1'. It can also be something more permissive and lenient to one or both of those restrictions in the dedication feats and class archetypes.
Things can be very explicitly left up to the table to decide on. That does not mean that the rules are not clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It causes me a cognitive disconnect when people use the wrong words for things.
These rules are not unclear. The options are incompatible. That is a very different accusation.
The resolution of this rules intersection is unclear. As Mathmuse points out, the Specific Overrides General rule exists for when "two rules conflict". This means an argument can be made that the rules for class archetypes is more specific than the general rule for all archetypes. As such, IMO the words used were correct. The fact that a DM has to make a ruling doesn't make it any less a rules issue brought about by a lack or rules clarity.
EDIT: SBG does not apply because there is no rules issue here to resolve. "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a Flexible Spellcaster" is no more a rules contradiction than "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a dwarf".
…but you can be an ancient elf and also a dwarf. You would be a dwarf aiuvarin with the elf atavism feat. You can just do that. Dwarfs have a long enough lifespan, one “measured in centuries”.
Anyways, even if not literally false, this analogy would still be terrible. If dwarves were invalid picks for ancient elf because they didn’t have a long enough ancestry, how is that at all comparable to the situation at hand? The current issue at hand is that you have two conflicting rules directives, in a circumstance that doesn’t even exist at the level which you make the decisions that would later cause it. How is that remotely comparable to not being able to take an ancestry feature because the feat says your lifespan is too short or whatever? There’s no comparable conflict there!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.
'Just don't use it' is a terrible argument that could be used excuse literally ANY error or needed errata. Paizo wouldn't have to make an FAQ, just put that on the page" 'You find a problem, it's trivially solved by not using the rules element in the first place.' Done... :P
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider this an error needing errata. These aren't two character options that you're pushed to use together; if that was the case then it would really be an error and should get errata.
But they're just two standalone options that don't really go well together. There's a default outcome of "well that just can't be done" as well as the standard escape hatch of "First Rule, the GM is fine with it, go".
I don't consider this an error needing errata.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for it needing errata, just that there is an odd hole in the rules that can cause a paradox. It being easy for a DM to fix or for the player to avoid it is a good reason to pass it over for an errata but not for determining if it is an error and/or leads to an unclear rules resolution. This is such a niche corner case, I wouldn't advocate for a 'fix' for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.'Just don't use it' is a terrible argument that could be used excuse literally ANY error or needed errata. Paizo wouldn't have to make an FAQ, just put that on the page" 'You find a problem, it's trivially solved by not using the rules element in the first place.' Done... :P
Proposed errata: In the Ancient Elf heritage add "Special: This will prevent you from using class archetypes".
Problem solved.
People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.'Just don't use it' is a terrible argument that could be used excuse literally ANY error or needed errata. Paizo wouldn't have to make an FAQ, just put that on the page" 'You find a problem, it's trivially solved by not using the rules element in the first place.' Done... :PProposed errata: In the Ancient Elf heritage add "Special: This will prevent you from using class archetypes".
Problem solved.
Oh, it's a simple fix for sure, but errata has to fit in the same footprint in the book or it's taking space away from something else. That errata takes up an extra line in the book, meaning a line has to be made up someplace else. The archetype section similarly would need to take up an extra line if you add it there instead. I've got a LOT of errata that's, IMO, with higher priority than this. Now if we still had a proper FAQ, it's be the perfect place for it [we do have some in the FAQ section that explains instead of erratas even though it's all under errata]...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now if we still had a proper FAQ, it's be the perfect place for it [we do have some in the FAQ section that explains instead of erratas even though it's all under errata]...
I really miss the FAQ for stuff like this and instances of damage where what's most needed is an explanation rather than an errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.It's unclear because during character creation, at level one, you can select both a dedication feat and take a class archetype - for some class archetypes, some aren't gained at level one without a dedication feat (possibly - it's actually a bit unclear on this, maybe all of them are!)
The dedication feat trait from ancient elf states: "Once you take a dedication feat, you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype."
Notably, this does not prevent taking the class archetype as the class archetype is not a dedication feat, and doesn't even give one at level one. A level one character with rogue dedication from ancient elf and the runelord class archetype has not violated any sort of dedication lockout (yet).
It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself. Now you have that ancient elf dedication feat saying you can't take more dedication feats, and the class archetype saying "If you select this ability, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level"
So you have one thing telling you that you can't select your class dedication feat, and one thing telling you that you *must*. Which one wins? IDK man. If we're gonna go by specific > general that the class archetype wins, but things really aren't very clear. Maybe you just don't get the class archetype dedication feat - some class archetypes are functional without it, after all.
After clearing out the rats in the basement and defeating Zolgran, Magesmith felt a rush of power over him as he prepared to face the dragon. But sadly, his flexibility in spellcasting clashed with this dedication to the sword, and he perished from a heart attack that very instant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no paradox, there is no rules hole, there is no problem. The unsupportable claim that there is does not become any less nonsensical with repetition.
A legal 1st level character can become illegal at 2nd... I agree with the "unsupportable claim that there is does not become any less nonsensical with repetition" but I'm looking nat your argument when I say that.
Good thing I never said "Just don't use it" then, eh?That's exactly what you said.
It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it cannot.
You literally can. Nothing prevents you from taking Ancient elf and a class archetype. It isn't until 2nd when you gain the second devotion feat that it becomes illegal. The fact that you know it will become illegal is besides the point. The argument is that the game allows it, not that it can be avoided.
All I have been arguing for "you cannot take two options with mutually incompatible requirements"
And all I've been arguing is that that isn't true as the game in fact does allow it. It's avoidable but nothing in the rules prevents it. I'm disagreeing with you that it's future illegality proactively makes the initial choice illegal.
Please stop deceptively editing my posts.
I responded it what you said. I used a complete sentence. I don't see how it's deceptive when it's a literal statement of yours. If you meant something else by that statement, it didn't come through to me. It sure sounded like you were saying you can ignore a rules problem by just choosing to not take them. How is "Just don't use it" and "It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination" not equivalent? I'm honestly curious what you see as deceptive. IMO, an avoidable problem is still a problem while you seem to think because it's avoidable, it's not a problem. Let me use a real life example,if I can easily see an obstruction in the road and avoid it, I'll acknowledge that the obstruction shouldn't be there; you seem to be saying it's fine to be there because you can avoid it so it isn't a problem.
EDIT: I have just had a look through your other recent posts and they all look pretty reasonable. What the hell happened to you in this thread?
I don't think my posting has changed here. I'm not sure why you think my not agreeing with you is being unreasonable or being deceptive.
An ancient elf being incapable of starting with a class archetype just doesn't make any narrative sense to me.
In your long life, you've dabbled in many paths and many styles. A typical ancient elf is at least 100 years old, though you might be younger at the GM's discretion. Choose a class other than your own. You gain the multiclass dedication feat for that class, even though you don't meet its level prerequisite. You must still meet its other prerequisites to gain the feat.
This bolded part would narratively support the elf having dabbled in a modified version of their own class. Yet confusingly, the heritage limits you to multiclass dedication feats, as though they are the only styles you could have dabbled in.
I think the heritage should allow a class dedication feat in addition to multiclass feats.
In your long life, you've dabbled in many paths and many styles. A typical ancient elf is at least 100 years old, though you might be younger at the GM's discretion. You gain a level 2 dedication feat, even though you don't meet its level prerequisite. You must still meet its other prerequisites to gain the feat.
This would allow class dedication feats without opening the floodgates to other archetypes that start at level 6 or something.
…but you can be an ancient elf and also a dwarf. You would be a dwarf aiuvarin with the elf atavism feat. You can just do that. Dwarfs have a long enough lifespan, one “measured in centuries”.EDIT: SBG does not apply because there is no rules issue here to resolve. "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a Flexible Spellcaster" is no more a rules contradiction than "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a dwarf".
Okay, nit picking acknowledged. I did not know about that feat. Is there a feat to get two elf Heritages on the same character? If not, pretend I said "Ancient Elf and Arctic Elf". If there is, pretend I picked two other options that are actually incompatible. EDIT: How about "full (not MCA) fighter, wizard, cleric"? (You could get two out of three in a Dual-Class game, but I don't know any way of being all three.) EDIT2: Technically that's three options, but the principle is the same.
Or just pretend I appended "without using an extra feat".
As an aside, how do you know dwarves live for hundreds of years? I cannot find it anywhere.
Anyways, even if not literally false, this analogy would still be terrible.It would be fine.
If dwarves were invalid picks for ancient elf because they didn’t have a long enough ancestry, how is that at all comparable to the situation at hand?It would be a situation where two PC options that are legal in isolation are not legal in combination, without its being a rules contradiction, and without SBG being invoked. Obviously, this is not something that should need demonstrating, but *gestures vaguely at the thread*
The current issue at hand is that you have two conflicting rules directives, in a circumstance that doesn’t even exist at the level which you make the decisions that would later cause it.True but irrelevant. If you take a class archetype at first level, you know at first level that you are committing to spending your L2 feat on the Dedication. If you cannot make that commitment, at first level, then you cannot take the archetype. The Dedication feat is not a surprise sprung on you at L2 - you know it is coming!
People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.
“A typical dwarf can live to around 350 years old” - the dwarf ancestry page on AON.
But whatever, let’s use your double heritage elf example. Why is that illegal? Well, it’s quite simple. The rules tell you to take one heritage. You have one heritage slot, by taking one you can’t take another. Direct and straightforward. Same for your classes example. Rules tell you to take one class. Only one slot to fit that in.
There’s no combination of features precedent here or whatever you think is going on. You have one thing, you can’t take another because the game rules explicitly say to pick one of the category of things. That if you take spell combination you can’t take archwizard’s might is not some stunning insight into the nature of the rules.
The ancient elf class archetype situation, on the other hand, is quite different. The reason for this is quite simple: There is no text in the rules stating that someone under dedication lockout (from ancient elf) cannot take a class archetype. There is a rule saying they can’t select another dedication feat, but class archetypes don’t have that. They straightforwardly don’t, you select the class archetypes, put it on your sheet, and there’s no dedication. Ya don’t have it. The only thing you have is some text telling you that you gotta take a dedication next level… which notably isn’t actually a dedication and is not prohibited by the text that does dedication lockout. Thus, the character is by RAW legal at level one.
As for the “you know it’s coming argument” let’s skip past the nonsense about whether the pathfinder rules care about your internal state of mind when selecting character options and cut to the point: This isn’t your true objection because if a new player who didn’t know did it, you wouldn’t think it was fine then. So it’s a pointless thing to argue over.
Glass, my point about class archetypes is that when you actually take the class archetype, at level one, you do not receive the dedication feat. All you get is some text saying you have to at level two (using your own class feat slots I might add, not as a granted bonus). There’s nothing that prohibits gaining an ability that says you must later take a dedication in the dedication rules. It’s not something covered by the text of the rules. “Dedication lockout” doesn’t do shit until level two.
And as for the new player thing, that’s my point exactly. It’s useless to argue about intent or whatever because we both know that if someone without any intent did it you wouldn’t think it was fine then. So it’s a dead argument branch, doesn’t matter.
I think the heritage should allow a class dedication feat in addition to multiclass feats.
I agree and that is how I intend to run it should it ever come up at my table.
Anyone insisting that this should result in an illegal build is looking for a problem rather than a solution.
Glass, my point about class archetypes is that when you actually take the class archetype, at level one, you do not receive the dedication feat.As previous covered multiple times, this is true but irrelevant. You don't get the Dedication at L1, but you do have to commit to it at L1. And it's "glass" not "Glass"!
Pointless sniping about capitalization of words at the start of sentences as per standard English punctuation aside, a commitment to take a feat later is not a dedication feat. You don't get the dedication feat, the only thing dedication lockout cares about. The rules say you can't get a dedication feat, they say nothing about getting a commitment to later take a dedication feat. The only time that becomes binding in any way shape or form is when it itself triggers, which doesn't happen at level one. At level one there is nothing on your character sheet that conflicts with dedication lockout. You can look over the entire thing with a microscope and find no illegal dedication feats whatsoever.
There’s nothing that prohibits gaining an ability that says you must later take a dedication in the dedication rules.Look at you own wording there: "must". If you take the archetype, you "must" take the Dedication feat at L2. Therefore, if you cannot take the Dedication feat at L2, you cannot take the archetype. That's pretty basic!
The first part of this is correct, you "must" take the dedication feat at level two. The second part is an inference with no textual support from the rules. There's no rule that checks whether your next level will be legal when creating characters, if there is please cite it.
“Dedication lockout” doesn’t do s$*@ until level two.In most circumstances, it doesn't do anything until L4, but that is not a hard and fast rule. In this case, it matters right from level 1.
It would matter at level 4 because you'd be directly trying to take another dedication feat at level 4, which lockout prohibits by the straightforward and clear text of the rule. That's literally the central case dedication lockout is made to prevent, and it bears little similarity to the class archetype-ancient elf case that involves no second dedication whatsoever at level one.
And as for the new player thing, that’s my point exactly. It’s useless to argue about intent or whatever because we both know that if someone without any intent did it you wouldn’t think it was fine then.You don't get to say "that’s my point exactly" when your point has nothing to do with mine. I never mentioned intent, so your bringing it up is a non-sequitur. If your point was really exactly my point, obviously you'd be agreeing with me! EDIT: I mean, obviously you literally can say it (you did). But it doesn't help with communication or advance your position.
Quote from previous comment in this chain:
"If you take a class archetype at first level, you know at first level that you are committing to spending your L2 feat on the Dedication. If you cannot make that commitment, at first level, then you cannot take the archetype. The Dedication feat is not a surprise sprung on you at L2 - you know it is coming!People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place."
Idk man seems like you're talking about the intent of the player to get into this rules conflict, talking about how they're falsely acting like it's a surprise sprung on them, and that they "know" that they're getting into it. Sounds like intent might be a factor in that argument. I tried to dismiss that line of argument by saying that it doesn't matter as it's not your true objection anyways, because a noob who didn't know shit could blunder into it and I didn't think you'd think it'd be legal in that case (which it would if intent was what mattered). And turns out I was right, you didn't think the noob would have a legal character.
I suppose I was the first one to use the word intent so that must mean it's automatically a non-sequitur on my end though.
Pointless sniping about capitalization of words at the start of sentences as per standard English punctuation asideI decide how my name is spelled, not you. You got it wrong, and I corrected you. That is not sniping, and it has nothing to do with punctuation.
I do not believe I have ever got your name wrong, but if I ever did and you called me on it I would not accuse you of "sniping". Instead, I would apologise and try to get it right in future. I guess that illustrates the difference between us pretty well.
Ok, I’m done here. I am not arguing with someone who lambasts me for following the oldest rule in English punctuation. Your true argument isn’t with me, it is with Merriam-Webster, I’m out of this ring.