Alternate Class Features and Feat Prerequisites

[S. Werner]

I'm looking at making a paladin with the Oath of Charity. This modifies and renames Lay on Hands to Charitable Hands. The description says it "otherwise works like and replaces lay on hands." I wanted to take a number of feats whose prerequisites require the Lay on Hands class feature (ex. Extra Lay on Hands, Word of Healing, etc.), but I'm wondering if by going with Oath of Charity that I will be unable to do this.

I've read through a couple of threads that talked about this question and most seemed to agree that it "should" be allowed, however, this character will be used in PFS, so won't be open to GM interpretation.

[S. Werner]

I guess I've dug up the pertinent information and I guess I'm just wondering if it violates RaW for the purpose of feat prerequisites.

According to the description for Archetypes and Alternate Class Features: "A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites."

However, here's the text for Charitable Hands:

Quote:

Charitable Hands (Su)

At 2nd level, a paladin with this oath heals 50% less when she uses lay on hands on herself, but 50% more than the normal amount when she uses it to heal others. Using lay on hands to harm undead deals the normal amount of damage.

This ability otherwise works like and replaces lay on hands.

The text specifically mentions using lay on hands twice and the last sentence, while saying it replaces lay on hands, also says it works like lay on hands except for the tweaks made to the amounts it heals.

[Heaggles]

I would say no, But if you where in my game I would say yes you can take those feats.

[Ciaran Barnes]

This seems like a RAW vs RAI deal. Ask your GM. Have you looked for a FAQ response?

[Ximen Bao]

Generally, probably not. In that specific instance you might have more of a leg to stand on since the alternate ability itself says you still use lay on hands.

[S. Werner]

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

This seems like a RAW vs RAI deal. Ask your GM. Have you looked for a FAQ response?

Well, in this case this is a PFS character, so no single GM's opinion is going to cut it. That's why I'm trying to get a feel from the masses about how it should be literally interpreted. It looks like it is probably not PFS legal, but I'm trying to get as many viewpoints as possible before I rule it out.

[Skylancer4]

The biggest issue for PFS is it isn't actually LoH anymore. It is 'Charitable Hands' which functions like (IE mechanical reference) LoH. This falls under the 'replaces' portion of the archtype rules.

[Rickmeister]

PFS RAW: Nope.

RAI: Sure, why not.

[wraithstrike]

RAW:no

You mush have prerequisite listed, and being similar to X is not the same as having X.

[Grey Lensman]

You have a case for a yes with the phrase 'otherwise works like'. But this is pretty much a wait until you get an official ruling type of thing since it can go either way.