Archetype stacking question

[Saldiven]

I know that the general rule is that you cannot have multiple stacked archetypes on a single class level that both modify or replace the same class feature.

However, sometimes an archetype will make what I would call a modification to a class feature, but does not call out the change. Typically, an archetype feature will have a final sentence that says, "This ability modifies X" or "This ability replaces Y."

For an example, the Inquisitor Heretic archetype adds a new Judgment to the list available to the Inquisitor. It doesn't change the number of times used or anything else about the Judgment class feature, but does add to the list of possible Judgments. However, this is not called out as modifying or replacing the Judgment class feature.

How would this interact with any Inquisitor archetype that specifically calls out that it is modifying or replacing the Judgment class feature?

I'm curious as to both rules opinions and "how I would play it" opinions. For example, what if a player wanted to have a Heretic Monster Tactician? Heretic adds the Escape Judgment to the list of Judgments available, but Monster Tactician replaces Judgment entirely (thereby losing that "benefit" which Heretic had granted).

[David knott 242]

Rules as written, adding a judgment to the available list modifies the Judgment class feature and thus any archetype that does this does not stack with any other archetype that replaces the Judgment class feature or modifies it in any way.

I have seen posts from various people (including some who work for Paizo) stating that in home games they would allow archetypes that add to a list of options but do not alter the feature in any other way (such as by taking away other options) to be combined.

[Rub-Eta]

I 2nd David.

[Saldiven]

I was thinking about allowing it in the case I cited above. It appears in this case it isn't one where allowing it offers a double improvement on the Judgment trade-off. If anything, the Sacred Hunter eliminates a benefit given by Heretic, making the Heretic option less valuable.

[Andrew L Klein]

I'd file this under "Not by the rules, but I might houserule it in a home game."

On one hand, you could say "well he's losing a benefit so it makes up for it"

On the other, I could say "But if he's willing to lose it, he obviously doesn't care and what kind of penalty is losing something you didn't care about?"

So while I might houserule it, my player would definitely have to justify why I should see it as any kind of trade off in the first place.

[James Risner]

Saldiven wrote:

final sentence that says, "This ability modifies X" or "This ability replaces Y.

That is new, they are trying to put that in there. That doesn't mean that if there is no line "This ability replaces" that you are fine.

The rule is if something adds, removes, replaces, modifies, augments, enhances, or any other word that isn't "leaves it identical to the original" then they won't stack.

Prior to the FAQ on this, there was a lot of stacking of things that shouldn't have stacked. Mostly because the thing didn't say "replaces Y" etc.

[Saldiven]

James Risner wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

final sentence that says, "This ability modifies X" or "This ability replaces Y.

That is new, they are trying to put that in there. That doesn't mean that if there is no line "This ability replaces" that you are fine.

The rule is if something adds, removes, replaces, modifies, augments, enhances, or any other word that isn't "leaves it identical to the original" then they won't stack.

Prior to the FAQ on this, there was a lot of stacking of things that shouldn't have stacked. Mostly because the thing didn't say "replaces Y" etc.

The interesting thing is that in the very same book, in the very same archetype, actually, there are examples of the "This ability modifies/replaces X" language. The very next archetype ability specifically calls out that it replaces the Monster Lore class ability.

But, like I said, I was more interested in seeing whether or not others thought the combination might be unreasonable to allow in a "how would I play it" sense.

The character in question wants the Heretic archetype mostly for fluffy reasons (has already opted for the Heresy Inquisition, too), and the player would keep the thematically appropriate but less powerful Heretic option over the stronger Sanctified Slayer archetype to keep in line with the character concept, were I to force the issue. I was leaning towards allowing the combination because Sacred Hunter also fit the concept, to a lesser degree than Heretic, but I wanted to see what others thought.

Now that I think about it, I probably should have put this in advice rather than rules....