|
Is Ancient Elf compatible with Class Archetypes? I've scoured the internet and found many threads along the PF2e timeline but have found no conclusive answer. Has there been any update in the recent times on the matter?
For the uninitiated, here is the TL;DR version through an example:
- Level 1.
- Character creation: Ancestry and Class are picked at the same time.
- I pick Ancient Elf (XYZ Dedication) and Gunslinger (Spellshot).
- This is 100% legal RAW.
- I fight a bunch of rats and level up.
- Level 2.
- Spellshot forces me to take Spellshot Dedication. However XYZ Dedication precludes me from taking another dedication.
- The character is now soft-locked for no fault of the player, whose only crime was to survive long enough to see a new level.
You may find a decent summary in this Reddit post, but you can easily find more if you don't like this one specifically.
The argument is that this is a case of "Specific trumps General", where the general rule of "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" is trumped by this specific interaction that would otherwise make the build legal until it suddenly isn't. But of course not everyone agrees on it.
The RAW on this is well summarized already in that thread (and others). Ancient Elf interacts with things that don't expect it in odd, probably unintended ways. It's weird, and it creates ambiguous situations that RAW doesn't account for well.
Thus the answer is this (emphasis mine):
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.
Ending up with a bricked character because you picked two fully legal options is clearly not intended. Thus, RAW says "don't follow strict RAW, do something that makes sense."
What "makes sense" may vary from table to table, but the simplest answer is that as the Class Archetype says you must take the dedication feat at level 2, the rule forces you to do it and that overrides the less specific rule saying you can't.
(The other option is to say "if you are taking a class archetype you cannot take Ancient Elf and vice versa", which blocks the situation from happening. That's not my preferred answer as a GM, but I understand if some other GM just wants to avoid this.)
|
|
Clearly everything can ultimately be solved at the table, but this is true for virtually any rules discussion.
I was wondering if in the past year or so some more material might have come up that helped settle this in a more formal way, e.g. Pathfinder Society. If not, this thread will act as yet another time point in case Paizo FAQ writers ever feel like looking for things to FAQ about.
FAQ around and find out.
Nope, nothing official on this that I've ever seen. I think they just assume that people will figure out that if taking two legal options can result in a bricked character, that you're not supposed to interpret it that way. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly everything can ultimately be solved at the table, but this is true for virtually any rules discussion.
I was wondering if in the past year or so some more material might have come up that helped settle this in a more formal way,
The printing of the Ambiguous Rules rule cited above is the formal way that this interaction is cleared up with. (And for those of you wanting to create such characters, be very glad of that.)
Personally I don't have a problem telling players to pick options that work correctly for the entire level range of the campaign. If you want to play a character with a Class Archetype, then Ancient Elf isn't the heritage to use with that.
"The character is now soft-locked for no fault of the player" is a pretty weak argument. The player's fault in this case was: not bothering to consider the implications of the rules beyond level 1 even though the Class Archetype general rules and the Archetype Dedication general rules make it pretty clear that having both interact with Ancient Elf is going to be a problem at level 2.
Do you really think that it is an unreasonable expectation that the players read and understand the general rules of the character build options that they are selecting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting observation is that Flexible Spellcaster was originally designed without the "Special" entry that imposed the archetype's two-feat limit (since the archetype doesn't have extra feats).
In the remaster, these entries were removed in favor of a general rule—since almost all dedication feats impose this limit—but because Flexible Spellcaster was never remastered, it never officially received the exception to the rule; however, it clearly wasn't designed to block other archetypes. Most GMs rule this way under the remaster rules as well.
Getting back to the topic: strictly speaking, yes, Ancient Elf conflicts with class archetypes, and it is up to the GM to judge these cases individually. Personally, I would allow it, but I would enforce the restriction regarding having two archetypes active at once. In other words, you could take a class archetype plus a multiclass archetype with Ancient Elf, but you could only take a third archetype after fulfilling the requirement of two extra feats in each of the existing archetypes.
Ultimately, we have to look at the reason behind the archetype limitation rule: it exists solely to prevent players from piling on too many archetypes. It isn't strictly a balance limitation, so a GM can make exceptions without causing gameplay issues (the Free Archetype variant rule proves this).
An important factor in all this is that all class archetypes printed so far are at best sidegrades and most of them are downgrades - not even accounting for the archetype lockout itself, which is also punishing.
So an interpretation of the rules where ancient elf and class archetypes can coexist poses no balance problems, and really the opposite is a kick to something that’s already down (class archetypes).
So an interpretation of the rules where ancient elf and class archetypes can coexist poses no balance problems, and really the opposite is a kick to something that’s already down (class archetypes).
I'm curious why it is a kick to Class Archetypes instead of the Ancient Elf Heritage.
Because I have found absolutely no use for that Heritage. Class Archetypes are at least interesting, even if not particularly powerful.
So why, when the two conflict, is it the useless Heritage that is considered as the preference, and the many Class Archetypes that get called the problem?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I have found absolutely no use for that Heritage.
I like it for feeling like you're multiclassing from the start. You multiclass a caster and you start off casting spells. You multiclass into Guardian/Champion and you start off with armor proficiencies. Monk multiclass gets you Powerful Fist. It may be just, but I kind of like that start.
On an objective level, it opens up your 2nd level feat if you're in a class that has good 1st-2nd level feats. For example, I could take an Ancient Elf [Witch (Paradox of Opposites)] Necromancer and I pick up a Familiar with Vitality Lash (and a second non-occult cantrip like Draw Moisture), gain the Religion skill and on top still get to take Invert Harm with my 2nd level feat. Vitality Lash is a pure upgrade from Void Warp with Mastery of Life and Death so it's a nice pick up on it's own plus all the rest.
IMO, Ancient Elf gives you a lot of bang for your buck. I mean, how many people take Human for the extra 1st level feat and it can get you an extra 1st or 2nd level one.
Remember that this is a comparison argument. And I feel like people aren't making the comparison that I am asking about. I'm asking about having to choose between Ancient Elf Heritage and Class Archetypes - not between Ancient Elf Heritage and other Heritage options (or other Class Feats).
And I'm not just comparing to the listed Class Archetype of Beast Gunner.
Compare to Runelord and Battle Harbinger.
Which one (Ancient Elf, or all of the Class Archetypes) is, overall, more valuable to the character creation options?
Or to put it another way, which one would the game system as a whole be more limited for not having?
And why. Don't forget to show your reasoning for the choice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the build, and more precisely, on the 2nd level class feat you aim for. For example Fake Out for a Gunslinger.
Whenever I build a MC character, Ancient Elf is my default choice unless losing a 2nd level class feat is no big thing.
Now, I also dislike Class Archetypes very much because they bar so many possible builds that the basic class allows for.
For example, any Gunslinger Way is compatible with MC Investigator from the start. Except for Spellshot where you have to wait till level 8.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that this is a comparison argument. And I feel like people aren't making the comparison that I am asking about. I'm asking about having to choose between Ancient Elf Heritage and Class Archetypes - not between Ancient Elf Heritage and other Heritage options (or other Class Feats).
In your argument you made statements like "I have found absolutely no use for that Heritage" and "the useless Heritage"; I specifically commented on THOSE parts of the post as I don't see it as either of the quotes statements. I honestly couldn't care about the comparison part of your post as the only part that caught my attention was about Ancient Elf.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The character is now soft-locked for no fault of the player" is a pretty weak argument. The player's fault in this case was: not bothering to consider the implications of the rules beyond level 1
That is a statement of fact, not an argument.
It's the rules job to ensure mechanical continuity across levels, not the player's. A character that's legal at level N is expected to stay legal at level N+1, for every N. It's not the player's responsibility to make a fully kitted out level 20 build just to make sure that their LEGAL level 1 character doesn't have any unintended consequences down the road.
The only reason you're minimizing this is because the conflict happens to occur at 2nd level. For as easy as the solution can be to prevent the issue in the first place, the issue still lies on the rules, not the player.
The rest is off topic and I'd invite you and others to discuss the usefulness of Ancient Elf heritage under Advice instead of a Rules thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
that it is RAW is crystal clear.
This issue has been discussed for years without reaching an official conclusion, to the point that there is actual RAW that adjudicates these kinds of strange interactions (Specific vs General, Ambiguous Rules).
If there is a critical mass of people disagreeing on the literal interpretation of a text, then that text is not "crystal clear", and their reading of the text has validity even if incorrect. People need to stop gaslighting others that a piece of rules is explicitly obvious when there is an actual body of internet literature proving otherwise.
Even if you are 100% correct, and this interaction is illegal both RAW and RAI for exactly as the same reasons you provided, your opinion is still just another data point. A valuable one for sure, as it provided enough evidence to convince me that the combination might be illegal, in fact, from level 1 - as the player commits to an option that's incompatible with another choice even before reaching level 2 - but I still oppose the idea that this is "clear" from a literal reading of the rules as written.
===
EDITED TO REMOVE ONE SENTENCE DEEMED BAITING! THE REST SEEMED A LITTLE HEATED BUT CIVIL, SO I LEFT IT! - MEC 09/08/2026
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Level 1.
- Character creation: Ancestry and Class are picked at the same time.
- I pick Ancient Elf (XYZ Dedication) and Gunslinger (Spellshot).
- This is 100% legal RAW.
(bolding mine). This is where you run into trouble.
You are, at level 1, simultaneously committing to both taking and not taking a particular feat. That is clearly impossible. Therefore, the combo is not allowed by RAW. The fact that actual feat does not come until level 2 is irrelevant: The commitments, and therefore the illegality, come online at level 1.
This does not appear to be the majority view (although I really do not understand why - "you cannot take incompatible options" is damn near a tautology), but I am comfortable saying the majority is wrong in this case. I am not going to get into a protracted argument about it (because I already have - I'd link the previous thread, but search seems to be down). EDIT: Found it! I must admit that my arguments in that thread were not always as good as they could have been, but the basic logic underlying them was (and remains) sound.
I make no argument that this RAW interaction is RAI, or even good (although the principle of "there is no need to specifically state you cannot take incompatible options - their incompatibility is enough" is both). But that it is RAW is crystal clear.
Except that's not how RAW works because the options are not incompatible when you take them. RAW has you, in order:
1. Pick an ancestry, which has you pick a heritage. Ancient Elf is fully legal at this point.
2. Pick a background, which is irrelevant here.
3. Pick a class. At this point you pick a class archetype, and there's no cost for doing so. So this is also fully legal.
At level 1, this is a fully legal character. It only becomes illegal at level 2 because the rulebook says "you must do X" and "you can't do X" simultaneously. That restriction does not exist at level 1. And that's why people get tripped up by this.
So throwing this back on the player to say "you should know that the rules contradict themselves later and not do that" is a solution, but it's not a RAW one because you can build that character fully legally at level 1 by following strict RAW.
And of course, the fact that strict RAW can give you an unworkable outcome is why strict RAW also says "if following the rules results in a nonsensical situation, come up with a ruling that makes sense."
TBH I'm pretty sure this comes up on discussion posts more often than it comes up in actual play.
|
|
Except that's not how RAW works because the options are not incompatible when you take them. RAW has you, in order:
1. Pick an ancestry, which has you pick a heritage. Ancient Elf is fully legal at this point.
2. Pick a background, which is irrelevant here.
3. Pick a class. At this point you pick a class archetype, and there's no cost for doing so. So this is also fully legal.At level 1, this is a fully legal character. It only becomes illegal at level 2 because the rulebook says "you must do X" and "you can't do X" simultaneously.
I think their point is that, when you pick Spellshot Gunslinger at 1st level, you agree to take Spellshot Dedication at 2nd level:
You must select Spellshot Dedication from the Spellshot archetype as your 2nd-level class feat.
But since you've already chosen another Dedication through Ancient Elf, then you are already in a breach because you know already that you can't, in fact, do that.
So the timeline would be:
1. Pick an ancestry, which has you pick a heritage. Ancient Elf is fully legal at this point.
2. Pick a background, which is irrelevant here.
3. Pick a class. The class (e.g. Spellshot) requires you to take a feat at 2nd level which you know already you won't be able to take due to the choices made at point 1. The choice of class is therefore illegal.
This is clean enough to convince me, but I'm open to reconsider it. Had the class archetype description not had that clause at level 1, then I would have agreed the issue was strictly triggering at level 2.
TBH I'm pretty sure this comes up on discussion posts more often than it comes up in actual play.
That's because people don't like unnecessary confrontation when coming up with a build. I'd be more than happy to play a Spellshot Gunslinger with Investigator Dedication if I knew that was 100% legal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's not how RAW works because the options are not incompatible when you take them. RAW has you, in order:
1. Pick an ancestry, which has you pick a heritage. Ancient Elf is fully legal at this point.
2. Pick a background, which is irrelevant here.
3. Pick a class. At this point you pick a class archetype, and there's no cost for doing so. So this is also fully legal.At level 1, this is a fully legal character. It only becomes illegal at level 2 because the rulebook says "you must do X" and "you can't do X" simultaneously.
I think their point is that, when you pick Spellshot Gunslinger at 1st level, you agree to take Spellshot Dedication at 2nd level:
You must select Spellshot Dedication from the Spellshot archetype as your 2nd-level class feat.But since you've already chosen another Dedication through Ancient Elf, then you are already in a breach because you know already that you can't, in fact, do that.
So the timeline would be:
1. Pick an ancestry, which has you pick a heritage. Ancient Elf is fully legal at this point.
2. Pick a background, which is irrelevant here.
3. Pick a class. The class (e.g. Spellshot) requires you to take a feat at 2nd level which you know already you won't be able to take due to the choices made at point 1. The choice of class is therefore illegal.This is clean enough to convince me, but I'm open to reconsider it. Had the class archetype description not had that clause at level 1, then I would have agreed the issue was strictly triggering at level 2.
Yes, that all makes perfect sense... but it's not a RAW argument. RAW doesn't say "you can't pick this now because it won't make sense later". It's a fully legal RAW choice at level 1. If you never get to level 2 for whatever reason (such as it being a one-shot), the problem never comes up and you've never run into the rule conflict.
RAW doesn't account for this, which is why the answer to the original question is "RAW doesn't account for this so the GM has to make a ruling".
TBH I'm pretty sure this comes up on discussion posts more often than it comes up in actual play.That's because people don't like unnecessary confrontation when coming up with a build. I'd be more than happy to play a Spellshot Gunslinger with Investigator Dedication if I knew that was 100% legal.
I mean, in practice people are just going to ask their GM how it works, who will make a ruling. But this doesn't come up often because class archetypes aren't used that often and so this specific combination is pretty rare.
It's much more common with Free Archetype (because FA itself is widely used), where Ancient Elf runs into a very similar issue: FA gives you a dedication at level 2 that you can't take because Ancient Elf gave you a dedication at level 1 and you can't possibly have met the 2 feat requirement yet.
How you rule that one probably informs how you rule this one.