What you believe and what the rules say are not in synch on this one.
|
A) I'm just of the belief that simply adding/replacing different Revelations at different levels wuld be allowed because I do not believe there is overlap.
B) Warsighted modifies the Oracle class by replacing Revelations at 1st, 7th, 11th, and 15th levels.
C) Dual-Cursed Oracle modifies the Oracle class by adding Revelations at 5th and 13 levels.
D) No overlap.
I'll explain each of your statements. A is 100% true but D is false.
B would stack with anything that replaced Revelations at other levels.
C doesn't replace any revelation with that statement. It modifies the entire class feature to add two new levels you gain Revelations (5 and 13). So it doesn't stack.
You didn't make this statement:
In addition, the cursed oracle may select the following revelations in place of a mystery revelation.Let's say I agree with you on D using C's logic. They still don't stack because every level of Revelations gain the ability to acquire a different Revelation. So the class feature is modified to add some options.
And just like I said in my previous post, I'm just of the belief that adding something specific at a certain point locks the whole thing up whereas subtracting something at a certain point does not.
|
|
Which modifies the base ability and therefore the FAQ makes it clear it doesn't stack.It's the same with bardic performance. If something changed the rounds or bardic performance but nothing else it wouldn't stack with any class that altered any bardic performance.Yes, as stated in the faq. But we're not gaining more rounds of bardic Perfomance, we're getting two additional Perfomances, a subset of the Bardic Performance ability.
Um, no it doesn't.
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.
It says it right there in the FaQ.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can selectIt says it right there in the FaQ.
Actually it says the opposite of what you'd like to see.
It calls out this exact scenario as not stacking, because Dual Curse adds to options you can select with Revelations.
Mark also wants it to work your way, but was strongly opposed by the development team for "good reasons" and mostly it is due to creating boundaries that are not obvious.
|
|
adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can selectIt says it right there in the FaQ.Actually it says the opposite of what you'd like to see.
It calls out this exact scenario as not stacking, because Dual Curse adds to options you can select with Revelations.
Mark also wants it to work your way, but was strongly opposed by the development team for "good reasons" and mostly it is due to creating boundaries that are not obvious.
My "it says right there in the faq" was to your bardic performance analogy.
Going back to the "bonus feat" stipulation, there's more confusion, does it just apply to bonus feats or from all feat-style abilities? Does it lock down everything connected to the ability it's attached to? Or does it just not allow any more changing of what extra bonus feats you can choose from?
Editing the base ability stops you from changing any subfeatures of that ability. If a bard archtype had an ability, "learns the new Awesome Bard song at lv 2 and the More Awesome bardsong at lv8" Then it's altering bardic performance parent ability and couldn't combine with anything changing any specific bardic performance.
|
|
Editing the base ability stops you from changing any subfeatures of that ability. If a bard archtype had an ability, "learns the new Awesome Bard song at lv 2 and the More Awesome bardsong at lv8" Then it's altering bardic performance parent ability and couldn't combine with anything changing any specific bardic performance.
And I disagree that adding constrains a class more than removing.
|
|
And I disagree that adding constrains a class more than removing.Which is fine, but know that you are disagreeing with a FAQ, a developer (who would rather see your interpretation be the norm but was shot down by the dev team), and in general most GM's and posters here.
If the FaQ is clarified (I posted a question into Mark's thread) then yes I will admit that I am in disagreement with it, until then I just see myself in disagreement with a FaQ I find vague.
Um actually yes they do, otherwise we end up in conversations like this.Yes, I use the word modify, the archetype ability does not.Again, they make it clear the words "this modifies" and "this replaces" are not required and are not even in all of the archetypes.
I do realize that I'm a bit late to this, but this quote seems sort of relevant.
I don't see why this wouldn't work. It's just like swapping out Bard Performance with one archetype and adding 2 additional performances for the cost losing bardic knowledge and well versed. Seems to that would work. Still in the end it's really up to the GM to allow if you want to stack two archetypes that have grey areas like this.
Then how do you explain the bolded part of the FaQ?
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....
Obviously, that part of the FAQ isn't the part that causes the conflict. The conflict comes from the later part of the FAQ, where they describe the kinds of things that 'alter the way the parent class feature works'. If you're going to argue that there's no conflict, argue about the part of the FAQ that's actually relevant to whether or not there's a conflict, which is the part that states that even small changes to the way a class feature functions - such as more choices or more uses - constitute altering that class feature and rendering it incompatible.
Since there seems to be confusion about what's really relevant to the issue:
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.
So:
1. You can't combine an archetype that replaces sub-features of a parent class feature with an archetype that makes even a small change to how that class feature works. Therefore, you can't combine Warsighted with Dual-Cursed if Dual-Cursed makes even a small change to how the Revelations class feature works.
2. Things such as adding new options or more uses constitute a change in how a class feature works, as per the FAQ. Dual-Cursed grants both new options and more selections for the Revelations class feature, which means that it alters it according to the criteria in the FAQ.
3. Therefore, Dual-Cursed can't be combined with Warsighted because Warsighted replaces sub-features of the Revelations class feature, and Dual-Cursed alters the way the Revelations feature works.
If you want to argue that they work, you have to make a case that Dual-Cursed somehow doesn't fit the description given in the FAQ for what constitutes altering a parent class feature.
Rebellious: You're technically correct since it's the rules forum, but it's a horrible, nonsensical ruling that makes archetype stacking significantly more restrictive and confusing without adding much to the game and it's buried deep in obscure FAQs where it belongs.
This would be the issue in a nutshell; the FAQ itself essentially says "it's impossible to predict all the messy interactions or address each case separately, so our default policy is restrictive. Feel free to ignore it if you like, but that's what it is". People don't like it, so... here comes another long thread debating a ruling that's actually pretty simple to interpret, and that people can ignore if they want to.