Sacred Servant Paladin with an Oath of Vengeance

[Vincent The Dark]

OK, so I checked these two archetypes and looks as thought there are no problems between them besides that they both add spells. Something like this shouldn't be the reason I cannot be both, right?

I mean, it is only a spell to a spell list, nothing more, nothing is replaced or taken away, just added.

[Martiln]

It should work, since none of the abilities are being replaced by both archetypes.

[Vincent The Dark]

Martiln wrote:

It should work, since none of the abilities are being replaced by both archetypes.

Cool : )

[Jeefo]

I cast resurrection on this thread!

I'd like to get this clarified a little better. While niether archetype replaces any of the same paladin class features, sacred servant does modify the "spells" feature, giving you a cleric domain, complete with domain spells and powers. While oath of vengeance includes the "oath spells" class feature, which adds spells to the paladin's spell list. So, are these features mutually exclusive? If not, does the modification to the same paladin class feature (spells) render these two archetypes incompatible?

[master_marshmallow]

Thread resuscitation?

[Bigdaddyjug]

By a strict reading of RAW, I would say no they do not stack, since they both modify the spells class feature.

[master_marshmallow]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

By a strict reading of RAW, I would say no they do not stack, since they both modify the spells class feature.

I think you are right, but there is a specific clause in the Oathbound archetype about stacking different oathes as they simply add to the spell list, and I don't see it as a terribly outlandish house rule to allow them to stack.

Another thing to note is that the Oathbound archetype does not say that it modifies or changes the Spells class feature, as most archetypes specifically say so in the description of the ability.

[The Crusader]

A spell list is not a quality of the Spells class ability. An oath Paladin has the same Spells Class Ability as a vanilla Paladin.

[master_marshmallow]

The Crusader wrote:

A spell list is not a quality of the Spells class ability. An oath Paladin has the same Spells Class Ability as a vanilla Paladin.

This is my interpretation as well.

[The Morphling]

They stack. And they work delightfully together.

[Bigdaddyjug]

The Crusader wrote:

A spell list is not a quality of the Spells class ability. An oath Paladin has the same Spells Class Ability as a vanilla Paladin.

A spell list is most certainly a quality of the "Spells" class feature. The paladin archetype that gives up the "Spells" class feature no longer has a spell list and cannot use spell-trigger items from the normal paladin spell list.

I also understand that there is a special dispensation about the different Oaths stacking, but Sacred Servant isn't one of the Oath archetypes, and that dispensation would not apply to it.

As I said, by a strict reading of RAW, I would say that no they do not stack. Outside of PFS, I would allow them to stack at my tables.

[The Morphling]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

As I said, by a strict an incorrect reading of RAW, I would say that no they do not stack.

Oathbound wrote:

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).

Nowhere in the rules does the Oathbound Paladin archetype say that it modifies the "Spells" class feature of the Paladin.

Therefore, the Oathbound Paladin archetype does not modify the "Spells" class feature of the Paladin.

There is simply a new class feature granted to the Oathbound Paladin called "Oath Spells." I can see how it's a bit confusing, since both include the word "Spells" but "Oath Spells" does not replace "Spells," nor does it modify "Spells."

Particularly if we're going by a "strict" reading of RAW, as you claim.

[Bigdaddyjug]

It most certainly does say it modifies the "Spells" class feature.

Ultimate Magic said 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.

Therefore, the "Oath spells" portion of the Oathbound paladins modifies the paladin's spell list. And the spell list is part of the "Spells" class feature. We can deduce from that that all Oathbound paladins modify the "Spells" class feture, and without a special rule stating otherwise, would not stack with any other archetype that modifies the "Spells" class feature.

By your "logic", Oathbound paladins would stack with Warrior of the Holy Light archetype.

[master_marshmallow]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

It most certainly does say it modifies the "Spells" class feature.

Ultimate Magic said 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.

Therefore, the "Oath spells" portion of the Oathbound paladins modifies the paladin's spell list. And the spell list is part of the "Spells" class feature. We can deduce from that that all Oathbound paladins modify the "Spells" class feture, and without a special rule stating otherwise, would not stack with any other archetype that modifies the "Spells" class feature.

By your "logic", Oathbound paladins would stack with Warrior of the Holy Light archetype.

There is a rule saying that Oaths can stack with each other, but considering your stance I am now a little iffy on whether or not they should stack.

The Spells class feature is most certainly changed by Sacred Servant because it says that it does, the Oathbound does not outright say it, but it is implied to directly change the class feature by adding to the spell list.

[ShadowcatX]

Just because an archetype does not specifically state "this modifies X class feature" does not mean it does not modify X class feature. Is the spells class feature for an oath paladin different than a non-oath paladin? Yes. Ergo, it has been modified.

[Bigdaddyjug]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

It most certainly does say it modifies the "Spells" class feature.

Ultimate Magic said 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.

Therefore, the "Oath spells" portion of the Oathbound paladins modifies the paladin's spell list. And the spell list is part of the "Spells" class feature. We can deduce from that that all Oathbound paladins modify the "Spells" class feture, and without a special rule stating otherwise, would not stack with any other archetype that modifies the "Spells" class feature.

By your "logic", Oathbound paladins would stack with Warrior of the Holy Light archetype.

There is a rule saying that Oaths can stack with each other, but considering your stance I am now a little iffy on whether or not they should stack.

The Spells class feature is most certainly changed by Sacred Servant because it says that it does, the Oathbound does not outright say it, but it is implied to directly change the class feature by adding to the spell list.

The specific rule allowing Oaths to stack overrides the general rule that 2 archetypes that change or modify the same class feature do not stack. Since Sacred Servant isn't an Oathbound archetype, it is not affected by the specific rule, and falls under the general rule. This is not in question.

The only thing that is in question, is whether the "Oath spells" feature that all Oathbound paladins get modifies the "Spells" class feature that all paladins get. My opinion is that yes, it does, based on the text I bolded in my most recent post before this one.

[Markov Spiked Chain]

Now that you mention it, how is Oathbound Paladin actually supposed to work? The first paragraph adds spells to the Paladin list. The second paragraph talks about spell slots, but nothing actually grants extra slots?

Would a 4th level Oath of Vengeance paladin with an 18 Cha have 1 or 2 first level spells? Does one of them have to be Wrath?

[ShadowcatX]

I don't believe you're gaining any extra slots, but that does seem a bit poorly worded. Probably it had extra slots, but they were later removed and the wording wasn't cleaned up properly.

[Bigdaddyjug]

ShadowcatX wrote:

I don't believe you're gaining any extra slots, but that does seem a bit poorly worded. Probably it had extra slots, but they were later removed and the wording wasn't cleaned up properly.

This would be my guess as well.

[master_marshmallow]

It's one of those things that has been asked about and left in the dark here on the boards. The thread's consensus I believe was that the original draft had plans of an additional spell slot, but the final edit did not include it and the language was not fixed to represent that.

[Athaleon]

It would probably go against intent for the Sacred Servant, an archetype that gains powerful abilities in exchange for fewer Smite Evil uses per day, to then be able to trade out Lay on Hands to gain those Smites back.

[Talib Aguiye Ironsi]

This isn't that much of a thread necro, right?

I'm looking to combine these archetypes as well.

It looks *to me* like they work.

The Oathbound Paladin modifies the Spells Class Feature by adding to the Paladin Spell List.

Whereas the Sacred Servant grants a Cleric Domain at the same level a Paladin gains the ability to cast spells.

Furthermore, the Sacred Servant lacks wording to the effect of "this otherwise modifies X class feature" that you normally find when an archetype modifies a class feature.

Further thoughts?

[Talib Aguiye Ironsi]

This thread has a demonstrated history of going silent for months at a time... Maybe I'll ask again next year...

[Shane LeRose]

I have a catfolk paladin who specializes in ranged, but has claws for melee when needed. He's an oathbound sacred servant of vengeance with the protection domain.

First you must defend the innocent, then, if need be, you avenge them.

I often see people squabble over nuances in the rules just like this. If this is a society question then the answer matters, since there is no logical reason why they couldn't be combined it stands to reason you can take both archetypes. Oathbound does not modify spells, it adds spells. Heck, even sacred servant doesn't actually change your spells, but adds to them.

I will never understand why people feel the need to self limit and add restriction to things that do not warrant it.

[Talib Aguiye Ironsi]

Shane LeRose wrote:

Oathbound does not modify spells, it adds spells.

That's one of the definitions of "modifying", actually ;-)

But gaining a Domain at the same level you gain access to the Spells Class Feature would, IMO, be different. Which, IMO, means that they *should* stack.

But, ultimately, it's not up to me.

I only play PFS. This would actually be for my 22nd character. I've come to accept a fair amount of table variation during my tenure, and I could probably be fine with the occasional GM that says "no", but it'd be nice to have a consensus.