Fighter Archetype that only gets Armour Training 1 still move in Heavy Armour?


Rules Questions

151 to 168 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

No, it only increases Class Abilities which you possess (which is why it increases Armor Training, you possess it).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Advanced Class Guide Archetype text wrote:

If an archetype replaces a class feature that's part of a series of improvements or additions to the base ability (such as a fighter's weapon training or a ranger's favored enemy), the next time the character would gain that ability, it counts as the lower-level ability that was replaced by the archetype. In effect, all abilities in that series are delayed until the next time the class improves that ability. For example, if an archetype replaces a rogue's +2d6 sneak attack bonus at 3rd level, her sneak attack doesn't jump from +1d6 to +3d6 at 5th level—it improves to +2d6 just as if she finally gained the increase for 3rd level. This adjustment continues for every level in which her sneak attack would improve, until at 19th level she has +9d6 instead of the +10d6 of a standard rogue.

If an archetype replaces a class feature that has a series of improvements, but it does not list one individual improvement, that class feature replaces the entire class feature and all of its improvements. For example, if a class feature says that it replaces trap sense without mentioning a specific bonus, it replaces all of trap sense.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

So no, if you only get Armor Training 1, and your archetype replaces all other instances of Armor Training, the war sash or whatever does nothing for you. The next ability is delayed until the next time the class improves the ability, which in this case never happens.

But don't take my word for it.

Mark Seifter wrote:
I believe that you are pretty much decisively correct, and the language that explains this is usually in those archetype chapter intros that nobody actually reads since they read the one in the APG and figure they're all the same (consider, for instance, the ACG archetype chapter intro).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ok, so settled. Dragoon 3 with Sash doesn't get Armor Training 2 unless you use an interpretation of RAW that isn't the correct interpretation.


TriOmegaZero, thank you for the quote. I had asked repeatedly for a quote that backs up the "no you can't" position and until now nobody had provided one.

Sovereign Court

You didn't need that, it was common sense.


OilHorse,

I don't need the veiled insults. My position had a legitimate logic to it and without the quote that TriOmegaZero provided it would still have that logic to it.

The fact that you and others cannot see that logic does not indicate a lack of common sense. Rules are often in question where they are incomplete and the rules on Armor Training 2 are clearly incomplete. Only a later rules clarification (the quote provided by TriOmegaZero) solved this question.

This is the Rules Forum, where discussion regarding the rules occur, statements about people's common sense is not relevant to this forum.

Sovereign Court

I have read this whole thread.

I saw your point just felt it was a way to wrangle something where there was nothing, with a twisting of how things were written.

You need to read the rules with common sense, they were not written in lawyer speak. (Loosely taken from a developer quote). So when the rules say some feature has been replaced with some other feature, you should be reasonably sure that you just don't have access to the feature for any purpose. This is, as shown to be true with TOZ's quote, regardless of whether or not the feature was written in one block or comes in stages as you naturally have access to one.


OilHorse, different people have different forms of logic and different ways of seeing things. Citing "common sense" is really, quite insulting.

Yes, the rules are not written in lawyer speak. But WITHOUT that one, single quote that TOZ provided we would still be here debating this because there is a legitimate alternate way of seeing it from what the majority appear to see it as.

Now, you, and others, may not see that but there are enough people who saw an issue that it wasn't just one person's idea.

Sometimes, the majority is wrong. There have been a few rules issues over the years that the minority argued and they turned out to be right.

BTW, I don't have to "wrangle" anything. I do not play PFS and I am usually the GM in my games. What rules debates and FAQs happen on this forum have little to no bearing on anything (for me) beyond this discussion forum. So please, don't ascribe motivations for me which you have no clue about.

Edit: Just to clarify, is it your position that when a minority believe that a rule works one way but a majority believes something else that the minority should sit down and shut up WITHOUT the majority providing any proof?
Because to me, that is what you are basically saying. For over 200 posts (across 2 threads) not one person actually cited the one single rule that backed them up until TOZ did. Not one. Not until TOZ.
Had ANYONE done so (I asked them to repeatedly) this would have ended on page 1 of the first thread.


Everyone will have their take on this.

However, for those of us who care about PFS, because we plan on attending those events, it's more important for us to be aligned with that set-tup's thinking.

Thus, we need to determine what the Devs, and PFS think about Armor Training, and the Sash.

I believe that because the Dragoon says that Spinning Lance replaces Armor training 2, he gains no benefit from the sash. Armor training two has been confirmed as being a thing that can be lost, by the Devs quote above.

However, everyone is free to do as they will at their own table, which Gauss does. So, now that we know Gauss plays at his table, and we wish to play at PFS, we can simply agree to disagree, since our interpretations don't affect each others' gameplay.


Issac Daneil, actually I am fine with and agree with the majority interpretation now that TOZ has shown where it came from.

But the reason this debate went on for so long is that for over 200 posts (across two threads) nobody cited the rule even when asked to.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

The strange thing about this was the seemingly different effects one could acquire between a 3rd level Dragoon with a Sash and a 7th level Dragoon without one.

No other place in the rules would we assume this could be true. Adding two levels of Cleric or an item that is as if two levels higher should arrive at the same values. Same for Monk and Monk's Robe.


Welcome to the internet, where arguments continue even after being settled.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Genuinely interested in that, not continuing the argument. But whatever TOO.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I meant OilHorse's comment.

Sovereign Court

Gauss wrote:

OilHorse, different people have different forms of logic and different ways of seeing things. Citing "common sense" is really, quite insulting.

Yes, the rules are not written in lawyer speak. But WITHOUT that one, single quote that TOZ provided we would still be here debating this because there is a legitimate alternate way of seeing it from what the majority appear to see it as.

Now, you, and others, may not see that but there are enough people who saw an issue that it wasn't just one person's idea.

Sometimes, the majority is wrong. There have been a few rules issues over the years that the minority argued and they turned out to be right.

BTW, I don't have to "wrangle" anything. I do not play PFS and I am usually the GM in my games. What rules debates and FAQs happen on this forum have little to no bearing on anything (for me) beyond this discussion forum. So please, don't ascribe motivations for me which you have no clue about.

Edit: Just to clarify, is it your position that when a minority believe that a rule works one way but a majority believes something else that the minority should sit down and shut up WITHOUT the majority providing any proof?
Because to me, that is what you are basically saying. For over 200 posts (across 2 threads) not one person actually cited the one single rule that backed them up until TOZ did. Not one. Not until TOZ.
Had ANYONE done so (I asked them to repeatedly) this would have ended on page 1 of the first thread.

Where was your rule providing proof? I am sure that if you had been able to provide the same burden of proof that you required others would have stopped debating with you also.

But in reality the proof was given many times...in the part where it was pointed out that the feature in question was *Replaced* in the archetype. You just seemed to refuse to believe that *Replaced* actually meant what it means. Thus the "common sense" comment I made that rides the idea that the rules were not made in "lawyer speak" but in "common speech".


OilHorse,

I repeatedly claimed that until the Devs chime in, a FAQ occurs, or a quote refuting what my position was that this would remain unresolved. It is people like you who claimed that this is not even a rules question and yet failed to provide proof until TOZ provided it.

Even now you clearly do not comprehend my position because you keep going on about 'replaced'. Armor Training 2 being replaced was never in question.

What that MEANT was in question and it is not until TOZ quoted the very specific text dealing with what that means was the question answered.

Even now, Armor Training (the basic ability) is not replaced.

Anyhow, you are dragging this out. The OP has his answer, I was eventually shown to be in the wrong (not a problem for me). Try not to be a jerk about it.


Ashram wrote:

This seems pretty cut and dried, despite the one and a half pages of moderately-civil discourse.

Armor Training is a four-part class feature, just as Weapon Training is. Fighter (dragoon) in particular gives up Armor Training 2-4 for other class features. Unless they were to pick up levels in, say, Magus (myrmidarch), Armor Training 2-4 does not exist for them. Sash of the War Champion would have zero effect on them, because they do not gain Armor Training levels higher than 1. It does not suddenly give them back the ability to advance the Armor Training that they gave up for their new archetype features.

(As a side note, anyone noticed the OP has only posted once in this thread?)

Blimey, I go away for a couple of weeks and this brews up...

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Advanced Class Guide Archetype text wrote:

If an archetype replaces a class feature that's part of a series of improvements or additions to the base ability (such as a fighter's weapon training or a ranger's favored enemy), the next time the character would gain that ability, it counts as the lower-level ability that was replaced by the archetype. In effect, all abilities in that series are delayed until the next time the class improves that ability. For example, if an archetype replaces a rogue's +2d6 sneak attack bonus at 3rd level, her sneak attack doesn't jump from +1d6 to +3d6 at 5th level—it improves to +2d6 just as if she finally gained the increase for 3rd level. This adjustment continues for every level in which her sneak attack would improve, until at 19th level she has +9d6 instead of the +10d6 of a standard rogue.

If an archetype replaces a class feature that has a series of improvements, but it does not list one individual improvement, that class feature replaces the entire class feature and all of its improvements. For example, if a class feature says that it replaces trap sense without mentioning a specific bonus, it replaces all of trap sense.

Thank you, TriOmegaZero. I think you've answered the question to my satisfaction.

In regards to the Sash, as far as I can tell, if gaining level 7 in Dragoon wouldn't give you the full speed in Heavy Armour, I cannot see why the Sash would. Even if RAW it would, the Dev's clearly seem to be treating Armour Training as 4 separate abilities (Armour Training 1, Armour Training 2, etc.)

As a GM ruling, I would probably allow the Sash either to up the abilities that replaced Armour Training and Bravery, or else create a slew of similiar Sashes for the various Archetypes.

151 to 168 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fighter Archetype that only gets Armour Training 1 still move in Heavy Armour? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.