PDA

View Full Version : Are Adaptions RAW?



silverwolfer
2012-09-02, 03:23 PM
I mean like crystal clear adaptions, like you can switch out arcane casting for divine casting requirements.

(IE Switch 2nd level arcane required , replace with 2nd level divine required )

Mark Hall
2012-09-02, 03:36 PM
In that they fall under "Rule 0", yes, but they're not really considered such for discussion purposes.

TuggyNE
2012-09-02, 06:13 PM
I mean like crystal clear adaptions, like you can switch out arcane casting for divine casting requirements.

(IE Switch 2nd level arcane required , replace with 2nd level divine required )

That wouldn't be RAW, no, because that's not how it was written. (In some cases, of course, use of RAW isn't very helpful; for example, the "RAW" on arcane swordsage is almost hopelessly vague. But even there, it's useful to know what RAW is, so you can veer off from it. :smallwink:)

Psyren
2012-09-03, 08:36 PM
They're rules, and they're written. I fail to see the issue.

Wyntonian
2012-09-03, 09:07 PM
They're rules, and they're written. I fail to see the issue.

Because they're essentially variants, in some cases.

Armor as DR is a rule, and is written. It also falls under the "Use this if you want" category as adaptions do. If the one given in the example, the casting one, was an actual rule, it would say "2nd level arcane or divine casting required", not "2nd level arcane casting" with a sidebar.

HunterOfJello
2012-09-03, 09:12 PM
I think it generally ends up being a question of how much the Adaptation strays from what the original class or PrC already was and how large of a change it is.

Changing Anima Mage from being a Arcane+Binding PrC to being a Divine+Binding PrC is really a small change. You don't have to change any numbers or work out anything new. The same is true of the Unarmed Swordsage adaptation. It's easy to see how you would do it, and really a small change overall.

An adaptation like Arcane Swordsage is a much different story. When you start making changes that very widely deviate from what the original class had, then they become far less like ACFs and far more like houserules.

shadow_archmagi
2012-09-04, 08:42 AM
Bad question. RAW isn't meaningful at the table. RAW is only meaningful on GITP, and only then because a chorus of voices will insist that the most literal interpretation of the rules is the only sane baseline for discussion. Even then, not too meaningful.

Best off asking your DM if they're ok to use in this particular game with this particular gaming group. If you're the DM, then still best to question it, you may uncover evidence against your own verdict.

Tyndmyr
2012-09-04, 09:57 AM
I mean like crystal clear adaptions, like you can switch out arcane casting for divine casting requirements.

(IE Switch 2nd level arcane required , replace with 2nd level divine required )

Here's the issue...they depend on DM adjudication, which isn't usually considered for RAW. Additionally, they're often poorly fleshed out, literally little more than ideas(arcane swordsage, for instance). So, the amount of DM variables involved makes the overall build problem unsolvable.

How willing people are to accept them depends on how much those factors are minimized. Without them, they look more like ACFs, which are pretty well accepted, but vague stuff like arcane swordsage is not.