Sorry, I misspoke earlier. Elemental Knight and Fiend Flayer are incompatible archetypes under the latest FAQ on archetype stacking so being a Tiefling and a Suli is useless.
I was thinking of the Fiend Flayer and Spire Defender. If you are both a Tiefling and an Elf then Eldritch Archer/Fiend Flayer (Tiefling)/Spire Defender (Elf) is an option. It could be achieved by a Tiefling with the Pass for Human alternate racial trait who selects Racial Heritage (Elf).
Note that Spire Defender is not proficient with bows of any kind, and also loses his armor proficiency. I'm really not sure what benefit you see in taking this.
I'm not suggesting that anyone do this. I'm just listing out all possible combinations.
A normaly Tiefling Magus wouldn't want to use Infernal Mortification except in an all-in nova against a boss, but if you're also an Eldritch Archer, Infernal Mortification becomes somewhat less dangerous.The problem is that mortification is a standard action. That makes it pretty useless in combat.
Still, you don't lose any class features, and it will be occasionally useful in combat, so then the only question becomes whether it is worth the opportunity cost of being a Tiefling (by actual race or by Racial Heritage).
The problem with EK is not that it gets spell recall seven levels later, but that it simply doesn't do much, and locks you out of other archetypes. Although I must say the EK's deflection ability is quite good.
Elemental Knight does get hurt by losing Spell Recall, but strangely this tradeoff doesn't get rid of Improved Spell Recall, so it's only temporarily bad.
It gives you some economical Energy Damage addition to your attacks (although this does have a feat cost of Incremental Elemental Assault that you will have to retrain later if you want to get this going before Magus level 4, when you get it as a bonus feat).
If you want to be both an Elemental Knight and a Fiend Flayer (on top of Eldritch Archer), be Human. Then take Racial Heritage (Suli) and Racial Heritage (Tiefling) at 1st level.Sorry, but you can't take the same feat twice.
You aren't taking exactly the same feat, since it is two different Racial Heritages, although I could see that Rules As Written you can't take it twice because it doesn't say "This feat can be taken multiple times . . . Each time it applies to a different race". HOWEVER, many hours after I posted, I figured out 2 different reasons that it won't work the way I stated:
1. You don't have Elemental Assault (or its replacement Energy Strike) if you are a Human with Racial Heritage (Suli), so the Elemental Knight class features that use it don't do anything. You can get around this by being an actual Suli, but with the alternate racial trait Mostly Human (thank you Inner Sea Races), and you can take Racial Heritage (Tiefling); this also gets around the objection against taking two different Racial Heritage feats.
2. Elemental Assault only works with melee attacks, and its replacement Energy Strike not only limits you to one energy type but also only works with ranged attacks if you choose Fire, and then only with hurled fire, not archery/etc. This doesn't totally cripple the Elemental Knight class features, but makes the basic use of your Elemental Assault synergize less well with the added Magus Arcana that use it. Elemental Knight is best used for a melee Magus (and if you DON'T take the Eldritch Archer archetype, you can take the Eldritch Scion archetype, which, despite lingering bugs, is MUCH better for a Suli thanks to changing your spellcasting ability score from Intelligence, for which you are penalized, to Charisma, for which you are boosted).
Sorry, I misspoke earlier. Elemental Knight and Fiend Flayer are incompatible archetypes under the latest FAQ on archetype stacking so being a Tiefling and a Suli is useless. {. . .}
Which FAQ is this, and how does it keep Elemental Knight and Fiend Flayer from stacking, since they don't modify or replace the same thing (Fiend Flayer doesn't modify or replace anything)?
It is this FAQ.
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.
Both Fiend Flayer and Elemental Knight add Magus Arcana to the list of available Arcana. As I read the FAQ, that means they don't stack in the same way that archetypes that both add class skills don't stack.
@Gisher: Huh, I hadn't noticed it was this strict now. But yes, I agree with your reading of this FAQ, although I don't like it much. That also means that Hexcrafter doesn't stack with a lot of archetypes any more...
According to my charts, Hexcrafter is now only compatible with Eldritch Archer, Spell Dancer, and Staff Magus.
This doesn't seem right -- optional replacements or alterations (addition of available Magus Arcana, which unlike addition of something like more rounds of Bardic Performance like they gave in the FAQ, is optional) should not limit your options for other modifications. Or to put it another way, making more types of Magus Arcana available (including Hex Arcana) sounds like alteration of sub-features to me, rather than alteration of the main feature.
The Magus Arcana class feature doesn't have sub-features the way Bardic Performance does. It just has a big list to choose from. The better comparison might be the example of "adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select." According to the FAQ, the fact that the new feat is optional doesn't make it any less of an alteration.
Well, that's a complete letdown. And just what were they trying to fix by making that FAQ entry so incredibly strict?
The Magus Arcana class feature doesn't have sub-features the way Bardic Performance does. It just has a big list to choose from. The better comparison might be the example of "adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select." According to the FAQ, the fact that the new feat is optional doesn't make it any less of an alteration.
Actually, "the magus arcana gained at level 3" counts as a sub-feature. So those don't stack with archetypes that add to the list of available arcana.
The Magus Arcana class feature doesn't have sub-features the way Bardic Performance does. It just has a big list to choose from. The better comparison might be the example of "adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select." According to the FAQ, the fact that the new feat is optional doesn't make it any less of an alteration.Actually, "the magus arcana gained at level 3" counts as a sub-feature. So those don't stack with archetypes that add to the list of available arcana.
You are right. I phrased it badly. In this particular case, both archetypes added to the list rather than specifying that they were changing Arcana gained at specific levels. So both archetypes are changing the entire class feature. Thus subtypes aren't an issue.
An archetype that altered or replaced the 3rd level Arcana could still be compatible with another archetype that altered or replaced an Arcana gained at a different level. Thanks for the correction. :)
Well, that's a complete letdown. And just what were they trying to fix by making that FAQ entry so incredibly strict?
As I recall, the original issue was whether archetypes that added class skills were compatible. I think the example was some Bard archetypes. But my memory could be faulty.
I just realized that interpreted this way, Qinggong Monk (widely seen as stacking with all other Monk archetypes) now cannot stack with any(?) other Monk archetypes, because it has the option to replace all sorts of things. Of course, with Monk Unchained(*) being incompatible with all Monk archetypes anway, they may not have cared when they wrote that FAQ.
(*)Has this propagated into PFS yet?
I just realized that interpreted this way, Qinggong Monk (widely seen as stacking with all other Monk archetypes) now cannot stack with any(?) other Monk archetypes, because it has the option to replace all sorts of things. Of course, with Monk Unchained(*) being incompatible with all Monk archetypes anway, they may not have cared when they wrote that FAQ.
(*)Has this propagated into PFS yet?
Qinggong Monks are a special case since the alterations themselves are optional. They have their own FAQ regarding their stacking rules.
But then by the same reasoning, a Magus archetype that makes some different Arcana available should be considered optional alterations, and another archetype that alters or replaces certain Magus Arcana would get first priority (you can't use an alternate Magus Arcana on an Arcana that got replaced or restricted, but should have no problem with using them on Magus Arcana levels that were not altered). And if both archetypes made more Magus Arcana available but didn't take any away, no problem -- you can't take 2 Arcana in a level anyway (unless you happen to have a feat just become available for Extra Arcana).
But then by the same reasoning, a Magus archetype that makes some different Arcana available should be considered optional alterations, and another archetype that alters or replaces certain Magus Arcana would get first priority (you can't use an alternate Magus Arcana on an Arcana that got replaced or restricted, but should have no problem with using them on Magus Arcana levels that were not altered). And if both archetypes made more Magus Arcana available but didn't take any away, no problem -- you can't take 2 Arcana in a level anyway (unless you happen to have a feat just become available for Extra Arcana).
No, they are different situations. A Magus who chooses the Fiend Flayer archetype has his Magus Arcana class ability altered regardless of whether he chooses to select one of the new Arcana. The change to the list of Arcana is part of the archetype, so the alteration to the class ability is unavoidable.
The Qinggong Monk is a very special case, because you decide which class abilities will be altered. The archetype doesn't change a class ability unless you choose to change it. In effect there are dozens of different Qinggong archetypes, and if you choose one that only alters abilities that aren't altered by another archetype then those archetypes are compatible.
The Fiend Flayer alters a class ability by offering new choices within that ability, but a Qinggong Monk offers you choices regarding which class abilities will be altered on the first place.
^1I wouldn't have interpreted it that way (or I wouldn't be saying this), but assuming that you're right, this restriction on archetype stacking seems all at once restrictive and brittle, requiring extremely fiddly crafting of wording to avoid clashes between all sorts of things one wouldn't expect to clash . . . Seems almost like the crafting of Infernal contracts . . . .