WArrior Skald, by the RAW!(is war)

[CyberThread]

Question, so RAW says that .... if a class is not updated in 3.5 it stays the same in 3.0.


Now when we get into arguments on the forum over the skald, often it is brought up that the bard system changed from 3.0 to 3.5.


Now warrior skald never got updated, and should not be considered forced to update simply because a base class updated.

So I would like to ask the forum as a matter of rules ethics, does the warrior skald get forced to be updated to the 3.5 bard music method, even if the prc itself never got updated?

[Urpriest]

Yes. The 3.0 to 3.5 update isn't just an update of particular rules elements, it's an update of rules philosophy. Things that were intentionally nixed from 3.0 core should also be nixed in 3.0 splats.

[Vortenger]

Question, so RAW says that .... if a class is not updated in 3.5 it stays the same in 3.0.


Now when we get into arguments on the forum over the skald, often it is brought up that the bard system changed from 3.0 to 3.5.


Now warrior skald never got updated, and should not be considered forced to update simply because a base class updated.

So I would like to ask the forum as a matter of rules ethics, does the warrior skald get forced to be updated to the 3.5 bard music method, even if the prc itself never got updated?

Does the Shaman from OA? It technically was updated, yet left alone and everyone STILL rolls the animal companion wording into 3.5. So yes, warrior skald does get updated forcibly as the mechanics it hinges upon have been updated as well.

Or to put it more succinctly, what Urpriest said.

[CyberThread]

<-< I thought it was folks who were well wishing, and thought it was an overlook of the author; while the author specially stated it wasn't but rather it would have simply made it way to powerful to give it a full fledged companion.


So if we changed how the rules go for the class, should we also change the entry level then for it?



Some stipulation , the system did not change, the bard merely had a levels condition on top of the skills condition. The fundemendal system did not change.

[Urpriest]

Some stipulation , the system did not change, the bard merely had a levels condition on top of the skills condition. The fundemendal system did not change.

That's how you would do it then. You'd make the class give only specific bardic music abilities at particular levels, based on how the class ought to progress bardic music.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Posted by CyberDrag
RAW!(is war)Is that a pro wrestling reference? :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

<-< I thought it was folks who were well wishing, and thought it was an overlook of the author; while the author specially stated it wasn't but rather it would have simply made it way to powerful to give it a full fledged companion.

You got a source for that?

[Pluto!]

<-< I thought it was folks who were well wishing, and thought it was an overlook of the author; while the author specially stated it wasn't but rather it would have simply made it way to powerful to give it a full fledged companion.
I'm also curious if you have a quote on that, because given the Dragon article, it really doesn't look like the case.

For context if you haven't seen the OA update article, it essentially says "run the book's contents as written except the following 5-10 pages of updates" and then makes bullet points for every chapter, only highlighting the materials that need to be changed in one way or another. The Animal Companion is not addressed in that list.

That's different than rewriting the class without mention of an Animal Companion, which would have indicated that the companion had gotten the axe, because an omission from a list of required changes indicates that the class feature should be left unchanged.

The problem is that the underlying mechanics had been ripped out of the game, creating the Catch-22 scenario for RAW-obsessed players in which the companion must be included unchanged to update the class according to the Dragon article, but the class feature couldn't exist unchanged in the 3.5 edition of the game.

Using the 3.5 Druid's companion mechanics for the Shaman isn't correct by RAW, but it's the same sort of "no ****" house-ruling as the Monk's unarmed proficiency. Because the writers don't write and really shouldn't be expected to write with faultless legalistic precision.

The same reasoning is why the only time I've seen the Warrior Skaald in 3.5, it followed the level-based limits as the 3.5 Bard: the game system was changed and - being just a noncompetitive game system - its writers can't be expected to be comprehensively precise, but the spirit of their changes can be reasonably inferred.

[Psyren]

Question, so RAW says that .... if a class is not updated in 3.5 it stays the same in 3.0.

Out of curiosity, I've always wondered where this specific wording of the rule comes from.

And in any event, the PHB specifies that 3.0 material can be used "with minor adjustments," which to me says DM approval is required since they would have to decide what that means.

[CyberThread]

That "rule" is the PR department for WOTC when they updated from 3.0 to 3.5 and said mostly everything from 3.0 can be used from 3.5, but if something has been updated (ghost face killer and the like) , then it superseded it.


For the next round, I goofed, I see now that the class specifically says BARD, for where or how you decided you get items, which means, that BARD has been upgraded to 3.5 , meaning that the class gets upgraded also, for the use for the word.


ALAS , it is not a clean upgrade, as the first bard did things by skill points, the second bard does things by level also, and as the bard has 20 levels, the skald only has 10, which leaves us with a conundrum, do we have something that could once get everything, now only qualify for 9th level bard songs.


So I modify my previous statements to also have this


Skill points requirments stay the same, but bard levels /2 rounded up= Warrior skald level of access. So a level 10 warrior skald would have access to inspire courage +4 but the only real issue would be mass suggestion, of once they reach enough skill points of 21 or above, they can use it.


Leaving it to a odd thing of having abilties way later, once it keeps instilling the perform check.


OR!, we can further modify the PRC to fit everything previously stated, but instead do it at a -5 for perform required checks, and pretend it is a fast progression bard music PRC at the cost of not having access to the spells that a bard also gets.

[Psyren]

That "rule" is the PR department for WOTC when they updated from 3.0 to 3.5 and said mostly everything from 3.0 can be used from 3.5, but if something has been updated (ghost face killer and the like) , then it superseded it.


Is that statement still around anywhere?

[dysprosium]

I believe the difference with the OA Shaman is that the listing for animal companion references "as Druid."

So while Dragon 318 did not specifically say that the animal companion got updated, it should follow that the animal companion for Shaman should still be "as Druid," in this case the 3.5 version.

[CyberThread]

Is that statement still around anywhere?



To be honest, am not going to spend my day going through WOTC press releases, sorry. The statement is somewhere on one of the old webpages, just not something, I really want to do.

[Psyren]

To be honest, am not going to spend my day going through WOTC press releases, sorry. The statement is somewhere on one of the old webpages, just not something, I really want to do.

I didn't ask you to... I just thought it was something you had easy access to retrieve/remember. I see it mentioned a lot but there may be some telephone game involved after all.