CustServ on Ranger Paragon Paths

[Eepop]

I know Cust Serv doesn't hold much of weight with a lot of folks around here, but I thought I'd post the response on I got here so you could all see it.

~~~~~Question~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The multiclassing feats section (pg 209) mentions that if you take the Initiate feat for a class that you can qualify for that class' paragon paths as if you were a member of that class.

This functions well for 6 of the classes. Warlocks needed special additional ruling in their feat that indicates that an initiate is also considered to have a pact for the purposes of choosing the warlock paragon path for that pact.

But what works for 7 of the 8 classes does not work for one: The Ranger. Each of the Ranger paragon paths (113-115) requires one of the two ranger combat styles, which are only available to Rangers.

a) Is multiclassing into Ranger paragon paths not allowed for some reason? If so, why?
b) Is it a typo, and the restrictions on battle styles should not be there at all?
c) At some point, the Ranger multiclass feat provided a combat style but when that was changed to only give Hunter's Quarry the paragon paths were not correctly updated?



~~~~Answer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a) Is multiclassing into Ranger paragon paths not allowed for some reason? If so, why?

It is allowed. Page 209 clearly states that the Warrior of the Wild feat means that the a mutliclassing character counts as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting the pre-reqs of that Paragon Class. I take this to mean that it automatically qualifies you for the Ranger Paragon Classes. Now I can submit this up to our specialists to make sure that this is 100% accurate.

However, as I read it that is how it is applied for 7 of the 8 classes and thus should be for the Ranger. If not, we'll be sure to get that into the errata!

b) Is it a typo, and the restrictions on battle styles should not be there at all?

The battle styles are written as intended. If there's a typo, see #1 and we'll get that ironed out by verifying with our specialists/dev that indeed they should or shouldn't be there.

c) At some point, the Ranger multiclass feat provided a combat style but when that was changed to only give Hunter's Quarry the paragon paths were not correctly updated?

Likely this was the case to be honest and why I'm going to have this checked. If I recall right in playtesting it did give you some benefits of the ranger combat styles. The benefits of the multiclassing may have been changed to Hunter's Mark and the rest was overlooked. However, we'll get it straightened out and if I get a direct answer I will go ahead and update you.

Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you.

[heffroncm]

Quality of CustServ answers has greatly improved in recent times.  As seen with the PHB, DMG, MM, and KotS FAQs, they are now our primary source for rulings, clarifications, and erratas.  We're going to have to start putting some faith in them for the new edition, at least until they start giving wildly contradictory answers to the same questions.

[Squirrelloid]

That's actually a fairly logical answer from Custserve, i'm impressed.

I'd be happier if on (a) they said: 'oh, you're right.  We think it should work like the others and allow access to paragon paths, but as written it currently doesn't.  We'll check with the development team to see if this was intentional and there may be an errata in the future depending on their response.'  Rather than 'You can take them because you can take the other class's pps' (no reference or acknowledgement of what the rules actually say).  Basically, while better than old custserve, the prose still oozes a complete lack of understanding for what the text actually says and what the problem actually is.  (Check out their answer to b wherein they state 'battle styles' are written as intended, but don't address their existence as prerequisistes - completely missing the thrust of the OPs question).

So, I'm happier with CustServe, but still not overjoyed.  I'd like some evidence they understand what a Rules As Written perspective means and were capable of actually reading and comprehending the rules.  Making reasonable noises and demonstrating system mastery are two very different things.

[brislove]

I'm pretty sure what the response to (A) was saying is almost exactly "hmm it doesn't work by raw, it should work, i'm going to tell you it works and try to get a definitive answer from the design team." At least that is how I read it.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm pretty sure what the response to (A) was saying is almost exactly "hmm it doesn't work by raw, it should work, i'm going to tell you it works and try to get a definitive answer from the design team." At least that is how I read it.

I read that as 'page 209 means you qualify for a paragon path in all ways' when page 209 says you count as the class for qualifying for paragon paths, which are two very different things.

[brislove]

i guess that was in the response as well. either way. He told you how he believed it should be played, and will inform you once he gets better clarification.

[Squirrelloid]

i guess that was in the response as well. either way. He told you how he believed it should be played, and will inform you once he gets better clarification.

Is it just me, or should CustServe explain how the rules actually work, not how the responder happens to think they should work in theory?

[heffroncm]

i guess that was in the response as well. either way. He told you how he believed it should be played, and will inform you once he gets better clarification.

Is it just me, or should CustServe explain how the rules actually work, not how the responder happens to think they should work in theory?

Depends on the case.  From the responce, I see someone saying "Yeah, the rules don't clarify it, it's SUPPOSED to work like blah, I'll get ahold of someone and get it looked at for errata, for now you're on your own, ask your DM."

That's exactly as it should be.  Useful, gives an informed opinion, forwards it to someone important enough to make a change, and reminds you that CustServ is not the be-all end-all answer for these issues, your DM is.

[Caelic]

The problem with that line of reasoning, Squirrel, is the same it's always been on the CO boards: although the CO boards operate under the assumption "The rules work strictly and literally as written at all times," that's not how the rules work in reality or in practice.  Expecting Customer Service to operate by that paradigm is unrealistic.

[Squirrelloid]

The problem with that line of reasoning, Squirrel, is the same it's always been on the CO boards: although the CO boards operate under the assumption "The rules work strictly and literally as written at all times," that's not how the rules work in reality or in practice.  Expecting Customer Service to operate by that paradigm is unrealistic.

The problem with *not* doing that is that CustServe responses are private communications between their representative and you.  If they tell you something other than what the rules literally say, you are now playing with a different rule set than people who understood what was written just fine and didn't feel the need to ask.  The reference for the rules needs to remain the text (with errata) because that is the *public record* of the rules.  The rules need to be (in theory and barring houserules - which are explicitly acknowledged deviations) the same at every table or they aren't actually rules (form a basis for interactions between players in the context of the game) because they don't work the same for everyone..