Which class features conflict? From my reading, they seem compatible.
By a strict reading, they both modify the 7th level bloodline feat.
yeah i kinda figured as much was hoping since one gave you more options then teh second said you cannot pick any that it might be allowed oh well no familiar for him i guess.
If he is willing to spend two feats on Skill Focus (some handy knowledge skill) and Edritch Heritage, he can have a familiar that way. (As the rogue in the game I'm running is doing so that he can have a monkey pal.)
By a strict reading, they both modify the 7th level bloodline feat.
It seems to me that while crosblooded offers you two two lists to choose from for the 7th level bloodline feat, it isn't actually modifying it. Tattooed Sorcerer would simply nullify those options by replacing the feat entirely.
By a strict reading, crossblooded modifies the bonus bloodline feat ability by allowing you to choose from both bloodlines, rather than normally just the one. That's a modification :)
I suppose I'd better concede that as a very, very strict RAW. Given that the character doesn't gain double class features, though, I see no reason to not allow it. I feel like the intent is to prevent gaining an extra class feature, which doesn't happen in this case.
Hmmmm I would get you can't do Eldritch Heritage:Tattooed Sorcerer though can you?
Since Tattooed Sorcerer is an archetype not a bloodline, nope. But Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) will get you a normal familiar, sadly not a flesh melding one :)
|
It might be worth noting that if you never reach lvl 7 (because you are taking a dip into Sorc instead of making it your primary class), then it never becomes an issue.
yes it does. you still cant combine archetypes that replace the same ability even if you'll never be high enough level for it to come up
Sorry to necro the thread.
Our group also had some disagreement on this with several claiming it is legal.
Honestly I can see both sides and am not sure where I fall.
I'm sure this has come up more then once, has anyone weighed in on it?
While technically it would not be PFS legeal, in home games I would allow that. Crossblooded already loses 1 spell known of each level and gets that painful -2 penalty to Will save (which is not a thing to triffle with) so adding tattooed sorcerer or wildblooded to that should not a serious imbalancing problem.
Yeah this is PFS, but for what its worth I agree with you, you do seem to give up a lot.
It's not PFS-legal, unfortunately.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
While technically it would not be PFS legeal, in home games I would allow that. Crossblooded already loses 1 spell known of each level and gets that painful -2 penalty to Will save (which is not a thing to triffle with) so adding tattooed sorcerer or wildblooded to that should not a serious imbalancing problem.
I just don't agree that it is illegal, even for PFS. Adding new choices to an ability should not be considered "altering" it. That would be like saying that the Vivisectionist Alchemist archetype essentially excludes all other archetypes that require giving up a discovery slot, because you can choose Bleeding Attack or Crippling Strike in place of a discovery, and so that "alters" the Discovery class feature. It doesn't alter it, it just opens more choices.
The Crossblooded sorcerer still has the "Bloodline" class feature AND ALL of the related features ("Class Skill", "Bonus Feats", "Bonus Spells", "Bloodline Arcana", "Bloodline Powers") at all the normal levels, you've just opened up some choices for some of those related class features. Therefore, taking Tattooed Sorcerer along with it should be completely legal, since it replaces some of the bloodline powers and feats that you would now have a choice about.
I have a Tattooed Crossblooded sorcerer in a home PFS game that we're running currently, so if it's not PFS legal I'll have to re-spec, but I just don't see why it WOULDN'T be legal.
I just don't agree that it is illegal, even for PFS. Adding new choices to an ability should not be considered "altering" it. That would be like saying that the Vivisectionist Alchemist archetype essentially excludes all other archetypes that require giving up a discovery slot, because you can choose Bleeding Attack or Crippling Strike in place of a discovery, and so that "alters" the Discovery class feature. It doesn't alter it, it just opens more choices.
The Crossblooded sorcerer still has the "Bloodline" class feature AND ALL of the related features ("Class Skill", "Bonus Feats", "Bonus Spells", "Bloodline Arcana", "Bloodline Powers") at all the normal levels, you've just opened up some choices for some of those related class features. Therefore, taking Tattooed Sorcerer along with it should be completely legal, since it replaces some of the bloodline powers and feats that you would now have a choice about.
I have a Tattooed Crossblooded sorcerer in a home PFS game that we're running currently, so if it's not PFS legal I'll have to re-spec, but I just don't see why it WOULDN'T be legal.
And while this is not a player in my personal group (I assume), this is the same thing I am hearing from them.
So thats why i was curious if anyone had a ruling.
Thanks again.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
If two archetypes replace, or alter a class feature, including adding to it, they do not stack.
So would you argue that, for example, a Preservationist/Vivisectionist Alchemist is PFS-illegal? The only "conflict" between the two is that the Vivisectionist can choose a few specific rogue talents in place of a discovery, and a Preservationist replaces the 18th-level discovery. That, to me, is not a conflict at all, since you've only added options to the Discovery class feature with the Vivisectionist, not altered it.
I have a Tattooed Crossblooded sorcerer in a home PFS game that we're running currently, so if it's not PFS legal I'll have to re-spec, but I just don't see why it WOULDN'T be legal.
Uh, decide, is it home game or PFS game? By my definition those are exclusive types of game (home = unorganized play, PFS = organized play). Or are you telling us that you play at home but GM insist on keeping the PFS rules? Or are you playing PFS games with all the reporting stuff and such but do it at private place (which IMO does not qualify as a home game).
While technically it would not be PFS legeal, in home games I would allow that.
I admit I was looking more on tattooed sorcerer/wildblooded combination than tattoo/crossblooded. It might be PFS legal but from what I understand (I am no PFS player) the PFS rule interpretation tend to be rather strict and err on the side of caution. This specific case should be commented upon by the developers/PFS overseers.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I have a Tattooed Crossblooded sorcerer in a home PFS game that we're running currently, so if it's not PFS legal I'll have to re-spec, but I just don't see why it WOULDN'T be legal.Uh, decide, is it home game or PFS game? By my definition those are exclusive types of game (home = unorganized play, PFS = organized play). Or are you telling us that you play at home but GM insist on keeping the PFS rules? Or are you playing PFS games with all the reporting stuff and such but do it at private place (which IMO does not qualify as a home game).
While technically it would not be PFS legeal, in home games I would allow that.I admit I was looking more on tattooed sorcerer/wildblooded combination than tattoo/crossblooded. It might be PFS legal but from what I understand (I am no PFS player) the PFS rule interpretation tend to be rather strict and err on the side of caution. This specific case should be commented upon by the developers/PFS overseers.
It's a PFS game that we play in just our group. We report everything online just like any other PFS game, but we don't open it up to any random person to come join in, that's what I meant by "PFS home game".
I agree that Tattooed and Wildblooded probably can't both be taken, because you're altering the Bloodline ability, changing it into "Mutated Bloodline". This isn't the case for Tattooed and Crossblooded, however, since the Crossblooded archetype still has the Bloodline and all the other related class abilities.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For archetype "stackability", all that matters is whether or not they both affect the same class feature, not how they affect the same class feature. It doesn't matter if they both affect it in the same way, or affect it in unrelated ways that don't interfere with each other, or whatever. If they both affect the same class feature in any way, then the archetypes don't stack.
Home game GMs may wish to be more lenient than that (I know I would), but the rules do not differentiate based on how class features are affected.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
So, this is functionally the same as qinggong monk, but I don't think that many people have a problem stacking it with other monk archetypes, do they? "You can keep what you would have had, or you can add this"? I have seen a few threads on it but was under the impression most people don't have a problem with that comboing.
Yeah, Qinggong monk is another archetype that seems to stack with others just fine, but if you think RAW is that adding options counts as "altering" a class feature. Again, personally, I don't think that Qinggong monk "alters" any class feature in and of itself, it just gives you options to move the normal monk class features around and adds a whole bunch of new options. Seems legit to me, even for PFS. I feel like if I took a Crossblooded Tattooed Sorcerer to a PFS table that most GMs would say "seems legit to me", but maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, Qinggong monk is another archetype that seems to stack with others just fine, but if you think RAW is that adding options counts as "altering" a class feature. Again, personally, I don't think that Qinggong monk "alters" any class feature in and of itself, it just gives you options to move the normal monk class features around and adds a whole bunch of new options. Seems legit to me, even for PFS. I feel like if I took a Crossblooded Tattooed Sorcerer to a PFS table that most GMs would say "seems legit to me", but maybe I'm wrong.
This is where my questions come from, seems about the same.
And i have seen several Qinggong/XXXX monks in PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Qinggong is a very nonstandard archetype, and probably shouldn't be used as an example for anything. :/ The key to it, though, is this line: "This replaces the monk class ability the qinggong monk gives up for this ki power." Any class ability you don't select, then, is unaffected. So yes, I believe this one is able to stack with others as long as you don't use it to replace any class features that are modified by whatever other archetypes you're using.
However, the sorcerer archetypes being discussed (crossblooded and tattooed) do not function the same way. They overlap at the 7th level bloodline feat. It's not like qinggong with one of them giving you the option to not modify that class feature at all. They both affect it. I see no ambiguity here, and no correlation to qinggong monks.
The archetypes do not stack unless your GM houserules otherwise. Such a character would be illegal in PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Qinggong is a very nonstandard archetype, and probably shouldn't be used as an example for anything. :/ The key to it, though, is this line: "This replaces the monk class ability the qinggong monk gives up for this ki power." Any class ability you don't select, then, is unaffected. So yes, I believe this one is able to stack with others as long as you don't use it to replace any class features that are modified by whatever other archetypes you're using.
However, the sorcerer archetypes being discussed (crossblooded and tattooed) do not function the same way. They overlap at the 7th level bloodline feat. It's not like qinggong with one of them giving you the option to not modify that class feature at all. They both affect it. I see no ambiguity here, and no correlation to qinggong monks.
The archetypes do not stack unless your GM houserules otherwise. Such a character would be illegal in PFS.
Alright, Qinggong is a bad example, fine. I still haven't heard what your judgement would be on something like Preservationist/Vivisectionist Alchemist. I personally feel that RAW says they should be perfectly compatible, just like the Crossblooded/Tattooed Sorcerer.
So would you argue that, for example, a Preservationist/Vivisectionist Alchemist is PFS-illegal? The only "conflict" between the two is that the Vivisectionist can choose a few specific rogue talents in place of a discovery, and a Preservationist replaces the 18th-level discovery. That, to me, is not a conflict at all, since you've only added options to the Discovery class feature with the Vivisectionist, not altered it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hm, the Vivisectionist is a bit nonstandard as well... There's usually a line saying something like "This replaces the X class feature" or "This otherwise functions like the normal X class feature". I'm honestly not sure on that particular combination of archetypes. I'd have to think on it a bit.
However, crossblooded/tattooed sorcerer is clearer, and is not legal.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Hm, the Vivisectionist is a bit nonstandard as well... There's usually a line saying something like "This replaces the X class feature" or "This otherwise functions like the normal X class feature". I'm honestly not sure on that particular combination of archetypes. I'd have to think on it a bit.
However, crossblooded/tattooed sorcerer is clearer, and is not legal.
I think we might just have to agree to disagree on this one, cuz obviously there isn't going to be a real answer unless a dev jumps in. I don't see any difference between these two situations, personally.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the alchemist's situation is closer to the qingong monk's: you might replace something, you might not. Meanwhile, crossblooded makes a sweeping change to an entire class feature and tattooed changed one instance of that class feature. The two changes don't conflict, but they're both affecting it regardless. That's a totally different situation.
As much as i hate to say it I am starting to lean in the direction on Cartmanbeck on this one.
Crossblooded gives more options much like the monk. but does not actually do anything to it.
Also he makes a good point that it is similar to the Viv alch. it adds more choices, but thats it...
Anyway, I decided this was a "ask your GM" type question, so I went ahead and did that. I PM'd Mike Brock and asked.
I'm not sure if he does this kind of thing but we shal see.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Adding options is a change. The archetype rules don't say you can't stack archetypes that remove the same class feature, they say you can't stack archetypes that change a class feature. They also don't say you can't stack archetypes that change the same part of a character's build, they say you can't stack archetypes that change the same class feature.
If two druid archetypes both modified the animal companion, you couldn't decide they stacked just because you were going to have a domain instead of an AC and therefore nothing's changing. The class feature still changed.
You can't stack two monk archetypes that both change the list of bonus feats you can pick, even if all the feats you actually pick were on all the lists. The class feature still changed.
You can't stack two cleric archetypes that both modify Channel Energy just because you're planning to dump CHA and won't be channeling at all anyway. It may not affect your build, but the class feature is still changed by both archetypes.
You can't stack two archetypes that change the same class feature. If one sorcerer archetype modifies your bonus feats class feature by making you skip one of them, and the other modifies your bonus feats class feature by altering the list you can choose from, guess what? They both modified your bonus feats class feature.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Adding options is a change. The archetype rules don't say you can't stack archetypes that remove the same class feature, they say you can't stack archetypes that change a class feature. They also don't say you can't stack archetypes that change the same part of a character's build, they say you can't stack archetypes that change the same class feature.
If two druid archetypes both modified the animal companion, you couldn't decide they stacked just because you were going to have a domain instead of an AC and therefore nothing's changing. The class feature still changed.
You can't stack two monk archetypes that both change the list of bonus feats you can pick, even if all the feats you actually pick were on all the lists. The class feature still changed.
You can't stack two cleric archetypes that both modify Channel Energy just because you're planning to dump CHA and won't be channeling at all anyway. It may not affect your build, but the class feature is still changed by both archetypes.
You can't stack two archetypes that change the same class feature. If one sorcerer archetype modifies your bonus feats class feature by making you skip one of them, and the other modifies your bonus feats class feature by altering the list you can choose from, guess what? They both modified your bonus feats class feature.
Jiggy, I understand your argument, but I just still flat-out disagree. Adding new options to CHOOSE from is not the same as altering a feature. That's just how I interpret it, and I'm pretty sure no amount of either of us saying the same thing over and over is going to change the other one's mind. But that's fine, different interpretations of wording are not necessarily a bad thing, but the devs really need to chime in to answer the question.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Adding new options to CHOOSE from is not the same as altering a feature.
In that case, I'd like to play a Ranger in one of your games and choose my Combat Style feats from any feat at all instead of just the ones listed. I'm sure you won't mind, since I'm not actually changing any class features just by adding new options to choose from. So you really wouldn't be able to say anything.
Either that, or a class feature is defined in part by what is and is not allowed, and by changing those parameters you change the class feature.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding new options to CHOOSE from is not the same as altering a feature.In that case, I'd like to play a Ranger in one of your games and choose my Combat Style feats from any feat at all instead of just the ones listed. I'm sure you won't mind, since I'm not actually changing any class features just by adding new options to choose from. So you really wouldn't be able to say anything.
Either that, or a class feature is defined in part by what is and is not allowed, and by changing those parameters you change the class feature.
See now you're just being ridiculous. There's a difference between adding one or two choices to a small list and opening things up to all possible options. Being able to choose between two sets of bloodline feats is not a significant change, and it doesn't change the way that the Bloodline class feature works overall (you still get a feat at the indicated level, you just have a few more options).
Same thing with the bloodline powers, instead of taking a specific one, you can choose between two. It's not a significant change, because those two bloodline powers most likely have very similar utility and strength. It doesn't ALTER the way the bloodline power class feature works in any way.
Feats can vary widely in their power level, which is why you get a short list of feats that you can take with each bloodline. Getting to choose between two of those short lists isn't going to unbalance anything, and it's not a significant alteration to the class ability. This is why it's okay to intermix Qinggong monk with other archetypes, you're balancing out the power level of the monk powers in the tradeoffs. That's the point I'm making.
At this point (for me) it seems both sides have a decent point.
if this were not for PFS it would be a no-brainer.
As it is, I will hope to hear back from my GM (Mike Brock), till then I'll leave this in the (growing) pile of "got me"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did the rule become that it takes a significant change to prevent stacking? Just because you think it's trivial doesn't mean the rules feel the same way.
The rule is binary; there are only two possibilities. Either the two archetypes both affect the same class feature, or they don't. There is no "if they both affect it at least this much". The line is "any" or "none".
If they'd wanted to allow a little overlap based on how much conflict there is, they'd have included a line about "GM discretion", like they do in other places (like with non-deity-worshipping clerics).
Interestingly enough, the rules typically mean what they say. The biggest clue to developer intent is what they actually wrote, not what random reader #3489511 thinks sounds nice.
You're definitely right about one thing, though: that nothing short of developer commentary is going to change your mind.
Marked for FAQ
|
I also desperately would like a ruling on this, as I built a character on this concept before hearing there was even a question as to whether it was legal. Like others, I understand the reasoning that says it's not legal, but disagree with that reasoning, and would like to hear an official decision. I *can* run the character with just one or the other, but it does change the concept; if the ruling ends up being that it is legal, I'd hate to have rebuilt him. :-|
|
I agree ... this is something that NEEDS to get FAQ'd ... this isn't a YMMV issue .. this is a concept Breaker for a lot of characters Especially in PFS
I am of the opinion that it works personally because I also do not see this as Altering unless they are getting as Word specific as 4th ed did which destroyed the integrity of that game (what was left of it)
in every instance of intersection it is a matter of your Choice of 2 Items is replaced by This
I also believe the SRD (Which is what I think a lot of ppl are referencing has screwed up on the designation of the Crossblood Bloodline Feats ... it shouldnt be a C ... it should be an (X)
and again ... does having a choice .. constitute altering
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I agree ... this is something that NEEDS to get FAQ'd ... this isn't a YMMV issue .. this is a concept Breaker for a lot of characters Especially in PFS
I am of the opinion that it works personally because I also do not see this as Altering unless they are getting as Word specific as 4th ed did which destroyed the integrity of that game (what was left of it)
in every instance of intersection it is a matter of your Choice of 2 Items is replaced by This
I also believe the SRD (Which is what I think a lot of ppl are referencing has screwed up on the designation of the Crossblood Bloodline Feats ... it shouldnt be a C ... it should be an (X)
and again ... does having a choice .. constitute altering
If you are going by strict RAW (which PFS does) then yes, adding more choices to a class feature counts as changing it. Personally, I think Crossblooded and Tattooed should be fine going together, but as it is we've structured the table on the Sorcerer page with strict RAW in mind. Technically, Crossblooded does alter all three of the bonus bloodline feats, so you can't trade the 7th level one out for the Tattooed sorcerer's ability.
|
|
If you are going by strict RAW (which PFS does) then yes, adding more choices to a class feature counts as changing it. Personally, I think Crossblooded and Tattooed should be fine going together, but as it is we've structured the table on the Sorcerer page with strict RAW in mind. Technically, Crossblooded does alter all three of the bonus bloodline feats, so you can't trade the 7th level one out for the Tattooed sorcerer's ability.I agree ... this is something that NEEDS to get FAQ'd ... this isn't a YMMV issue .. this is a concept Breaker for a lot of characters Especially in PFS
I am of the opinion that it works personally because I also do not see this as Altering unless they are getting as Word specific as 4th ed did which destroyed the integrity of that game (what was left of it)
in every instance of intersection it is a matter of your Choice of 2 Items is replaced by This
I also believe the SRD (Which is what I think a lot of ppl are referencing has screwed up on the designation of the Crossblood Bloodline Feats ... it shouldnt be a C ... it should be an (X)
and again ... does having a choice .. constitute altering
I was posting the question on the ask JJ thread and my wording hit me
as I typed it out .... I dont like it ... but I can no longer agree that it works