Belarias |
I have recently started playing in a local and weekly PFS game, the character i am building is lv 4 with GM credit from games i GMed last year. I have the following question, must be able to be played in the aforementioned game:
Am i able to stack the Oathbound - Oath of Vengeance (from Ultimate Combat) and the Warrior of Holy Light (from Advanced Player's Guide) Paladin Archetypes?
Bearded Ben |
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.
Doesn't the Oath's addition to the paladin's spell list count as altering "the paladin's spells class feature" which is replaced by Warrior of Holy Light?
Alexander_Damocles |
Quote:A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.Doesn't the Oath's addition to the paladin's spell list count as altering "the paladin's spells class feature" which is replaced by Warrior of Holy Light?
Because the paladin still casts spells, uses the same ability modifier, etc, it looks like the paladin is in the clear. Otherwise, all Oaths are out of play. I can see both points of view, but in this case, I think the Paladin is good to go.
Caderyn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would technically not work, because they both edit the same class feature, similar to the reason crossblooded doesnt work with alot of other archtypes.
An obvious way to see the flaw in the two archtypes presented is below
Oath of Vengeance paladin adds spells and then warrior of holy light removes them (seems fine from this way)
Warrior of Holy light removes spellcasting and Oath of Vengeance Paladin tries to add spells (obviously doesnt work).
If the archtypes must be taken in a specific order to be legal, then obviously they arent legal as they must be modifing the same class feature.
Alexander_Damocles |
It would technically not work, because they both edit the same class feature, similar to the reason crossblooded doesnt work with alot of other archtypes.
An obvious way to see the flaw in the two archtypes presented is below
Oath of Vengeance paladin adds spells and then warrior of holy light removes them (seems fine from this way)
Warrior of Holy light removes spellcasting and Oath of Vengeance Paladin tries to add spells (obviously doesnt work).
If the archtypes must be taken in a specific order to be legal, then obviously they arent legal as they must be modifing the same class feature.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Looks like Warrior of the Holy Light is a no-go with any oath. Bummer.
Fromper |
Go re-read the quote in Bearded Ben's first post in this thread - "none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature" seems pretty clear. One of these replaces spells and the other alters them. Thus, they're both trying to touch the same class feature, which doesn't work.
Michael Brock Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caderyn wrote:That actually makes a lot of sense. Looks like Warrior of the Holy Light is a no-go with any oath. Bummer.It would technically not work, because they both edit the same class feature, similar to the reason crossblooded doesnt work with alot of other archtypes.
An obvious way to see the flaw in the two archtypes presented is below
Oath of Vengeance paladin adds spells and then warrior of holy light removes them (seems fine from this way)
Warrior of Holy light removes spellcasting and Oath of Vengeance Paladin tries to add spells (obviously doesnt work).
If the archtypes must be taken in a specific order to be legal, then obviously they arent legal as they must be modifing the same class feature.
After looking into it very quickly, looks like you are right. Warrior of Holy Light won't work with any oath.
DesolateHarmony |
That didn't come up here,
So I'm wondering which is correct?
Also since the WotHL doesn't seem OP, would you allow the combination anyway?
This is the Pathfinder Society Organized Play section of the boards. The thread is three years old, and the then Campaign Coordinator, Mike Brock, made a ruling. It is binding unless superseded.
Gornil Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland |
Well crap, I just saw this and it ruins my tiefling Order of Fiends/WotHL character that i have been playing off and on since the month before this post was made! I know Mike Brock commented, but his comment about only taking a quick glance at the two archetypes makes me hope that after a longer look we might get an official ruling that won't ban this combination of any Oath and WotHL.
My opinion, biased as it may be, is that they are ok, as the "Oath" archetypes merely add to the Paladin's spell list, but don't actually change the base Paladin Spell list. WotHL just removes the spellcasting abilities, extra spells and all.
I would prefer that this combo be ok, as while the Oath archetype for my character is really more about fluff than any mechanical benefits, it is nice to have the extra oomph the Oath gives me, even if it is only of situational use. I am sure there are others for whom their character's Oath is more crucial to their build. I really can't see any way that having this combo allowed would hurt PFSOP either.
WiseWolfOfYoitsu |
Even if two archetypes add options to a class ability, they are both technically changing it and cannot be stacked under strict RAW.
If ANYTHING about a class feature is changed by an archetype, you cannot stack it with another archetype that changes anything about that same feature.
Except for Qinggong Monk. Qinggong stacks with any other Monk Archetype. Though it is funny to hear someone say they are a Qinggong Martial Artist... "How can you be a Qinggong master? You have no ki!"
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
My opinion, biased as it may be, is that they are ok, as the "Oath" archetypes merely add to the Paladin's spell list, but don't actually change the base Paladin Spell list. WotHL just removes the spellcasting abilities, extra spells and all.
Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.
LazarX |
Quote:A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.Doesn't the Oath's addition to the paladin's spell list count as altering "the paladin's spells class feature" which is replaced by Warrior of Holy Light?
Not really. It does not make any changes to the spellcasting feature, just gives the Paladin additions to his spell list, which the other archetype disables.
zefig |
Bearded Ben wrote:Not really. It does not make any changes to the spellcasting feature, just gives the Paladin additions to his spell list, which the other archetype disables.Quote:A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.Doesn't the Oath's addition to the paladin's spell list count as altering "the paladin's spells class feature" which is replaced by Warrior of Holy Light?
"Giving the Paladin additions to his spell list" alters the spell list, which is part of his spellcasting. The spell list is not the same as a typical paladin's, because it has extra spells on it.
Serisan |
The class feature Oath Spells does not modify anything.
Oath Spells: A paladin's oath influences what magic she can perform. An oathbound paladin adds one spell to the paladin spell list at each paladin spell level she can cast (including spell levels for which she would only gain spells per day if her Charisma were high enough to grant bonus spells of that level). Her oath determines what spell is added to the spell list. If the paladin has multiple oaths, the spells from each oath are added to her spell list.
If an oathbound paladin has more than one oath, she may prepare any one of her oath's spells in that slot (similar to a cleric choosing one of her two domain spells to prepare in a domain spell slot).
There is no conflict here. Oathbound adds a class feature. It does not modify your spells class feature. If it did, it would say "this modifies the spells class feature." It doesn't say that, so we can infer that this does not modify the class feature.
There's a bit of editing issue in the paragraph, so that's obviously subject to change. As written, it sounds as though there were originally additional spell slots (like domains) that were cut later in development, but the text was not modified to match. That being the case, it's pretty clear why it wouldn't modify the spells class feature - it was intended to work like a domain, but they decided not to give additional spell slots, so they updated the first paragraph to add them to the spell list.
Chess Pwn |
The class feature Oath Spells does not modify anything.
Ultimate Magic wrote:Oath Spells: A paladin's oath influences what magic she can perform. An oathbound paladin adds one spell to the paladin spell list at each paladin spell level she can cast (including spell levels for which she would only gain spells per day if her Charisma were high enough to grant bonus spells of that level). Her oath determines what spell is added to the spell list. If the paladin has multiple oaths, the spells from each oath are added to her spell list.
If an oathbound paladin has more than one oath, she may prepare any one of her oath's spells in that slot (similar to a cleric choosing one of her two domain spells to prepare in a domain spell slot).
There is no conflict here. Oathbound adds a class feature. It does not modify your spells class feature. If it did, it would say "this modifies the spells class feature." It doesn't say that, so we can infer that this does not modify the class feature.
There's a bit of editing issue in the paragraph, so that's obviously subject to change. As written, it sounds as though there were originally additional spell slots (like domains) that were cut later in development, but the text was not modified to match. That being the case, it's pretty clear why it wouldn't modify the spells class feature - it was intended to work like a domain, but they decided not to give additional spell slots, so they updated the first paragraph to add them to the spell list.
The developers have said that older material doesn't have the line "this modifies..." but it still modifies stuff. So since they are adding things to spell lists it's obviously adding to spell lists, which is modifying spell lists.
Serisan |
Serisan wrote:The developers have said that older material doesn't have the line "this modifies..." but it still modifies stuff. So since they are adding things to spell lists it's obviously adding to spell lists, which is modifying spell lists.The class feature Oath Spells does not modify anything.
Ultimate Magic wrote:Oath Spells: A paladin's oath influences what magic she can perform. An oathbound paladin adds one spell to the paladin spell list at each paladin spell level she can cast (including spell levels for which she would only gain spells per day if her Charisma were high enough to grant bonus spells of that level). Her oath determines what spell is added to the spell list. If the paladin has multiple oaths, the spells from each oath are added to her spell list.
If an oathbound paladin has more than one oath, she may prepare any one of her oath's spells in that slot (similar to a cleric choosing one of her two domain spells to prepare in a domain spell slot).
There is no conflict here. Oathbound adds a class feature. It does not modify your spells class feature. If it did, it would say "this modifies the spells class feature." It doesn't say that, so we can infer that this does not modify the class feature.
There's a bit of editing issue in the paragraph, so that's obviously subject to change. As written, it sounds as though there were originally additional spell slots (like domains) that were cut later in development, but the text was not modified to match. That being the case, it's pretty clear why it wouldn't modify the spells class feature - it was intended to work like a domain, but they decided not to give additional spell slots, so they updated the first paragraph to add them to the spell list.
Link?
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
Please reread the FAQ:
Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?
If something alters the way the parent class feature works you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class.
Adding a spell alters the paladin spellcasting bonus spells subfeature. Thus you could take two archtypes that each add spells,
Removing spellcasting removes the paladin spellcasting parent feature.
Therefore, *BY THE FAQ* you cannot do both.
GreySector RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 |
Chess Pwn wrote:The developers have said that older material doesn't have the line "this modifies..." but it still modifies stuff. So since they are adding things to spell lists it's obviously adding to spell lists, which is modifying spell lists.Link?
I believe that Jason Bulmahn said it during a panel discussion at PaizoCon or Gen Con (or perhaps in a Know Direction interview).
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
Serisan wrote:I believe that Jason Bulmahn said it during a panel discussion at PaizoCon or Gen Con (or perhaps in a Know Direction interview).Chess Pwn wrote:The developers have said that older material doesn't have the line "this modifies..." but it still modifies stuff. So since they are adding things to spell lists it's obviously adding to spell lists, which is modifying spell lists.Link?
And it is essentially in the FAQ, posted above.
Gornil Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland |
Gornil wrote:
My opinion, biased as it may be, is that they are ok, as the "Oath" archetypes merely add to the Paladin's spell list, but don't actually change the base Paladin Spell list. WotHL just removes the spellcasting abilities, extra spells and all.
Quote:Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.
The bolded portion of the FAQ seems to imply that John, or the next Campaign Coordinator, can make a PFSOP ruling allowing for such an overlap. This isn't a game changing archetype stack, simply one that doesn't really make sense to disallow.
BartonOliver |
Sorry, but I don't see how it makes sense to allow an archetype that adds spells to a spell list to stack with an archetype that has no spell list.
(Not saying it's game breaking, just doesn't make sense to me.)
As is it doesn't work in PFS (or Pathfinder without GM ruling) and I don't see an argument that should make it logical or work at this point. (Outside because I want it and it's not unbalanced)
Nefreet |
I've been playing an Oathbound (Oath of Vengeance)/Sacred Servant Paladin for a while now. IMO, the two archetypes do not conflict, but I have encountered considerable table variation on it.
Oathbound adds spells to the Paladin Spell list, and thus is incompatible with archetypes that modify the Spells class feature of the base Paladin.
Sacred Servant grants you a Cleric Domain at 4th level. It says nothing about modifying the Spells class feature, and for Clerics their Domain and Spells class features are separate.
To me, I see no conflict, but d20pfsrd says they conflict, so GMs that rely on that website are often the ones that disagree with me on this.
What are others' thoughts?
Damanta |
I see a conflict. Your spells ability gets changed by the Sacred Servant, even if it doesn't specify that in the description:
Spells: At 4th level, when a sacred servant gains the ability to cast spells, she also chooses one domain associated with her deity. Her effective cleric level for this domain is equal to her paladin level –3. In addition, she also gains one domain spell slot for each level of paladin spells she can cast. Every day she must prepare the domain spell from her chosen domain in that spell slot.
Which means the FAQ kicks in, because something "small" is added.
The Fox |
In that case, a paladin cannot have two oaths, because they both add spells.
However...
If an oathbound paladin has more than one oath, she may prepare any one of her oath's spells in that slot (similar to a cleric choosing one of her two domain spells to prepare in a domain spell slot).
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |