There is a problem with the way battle host is worded. I know that the wording of pathfinder's occult classes are really weird and sometimes not so clear but in this case I have trouble to believe that it should work like this.
The occultist archetype battle host has the class feature panoply bound. The class feature looks like this
Panoply bound class feature:
Panoply Bond (Su)
At 1st level, a battle host forms a supernatural bond with a specific weapon, suit of armor, or shield. This selection is permanent and can never be changed. The bonded item is masterwork quality and the battle host begins play with it at no cost.
The bonded item is immune to the broken condition for as long as the battle host lives. If a battle host dies and is restored to life, the bonded item is also restored if it was destroyed. Any magic powers associated with a battle host’s bonded item function only for the battle host; in the hands of anyone else it is only a masterwork item. The bonded item starts as an implement for any single school of magic at 1st level, and gains access to additional schools of magic at 2nd, 10th, 14th, and 18th levels, granting the battle host access to base focus powers and resonant powers accordingly. The battle host’s bonded item serves as his implement component to cast occultist spells of all the schools that he knows.
However, he must split his mental focus among the schools he knows for the purpose of determining resonant powers and using focus powers, even though he possesses only one physical item as an implement.
This ability alters implements, mental focus, spellcasting, and implement mastery.
Here is the problem:
The class feature wrote:
The bonded item starts as an implement for any single school of magic at 1st level, and gains access to additional schools of magic at 2nd, 10th, 14th, and 18th levels
The feature only alters so here is the problem with this wording. The class feature never mentions replacements of the implements at these levels and because of altering the second implement at level 1 and the implement at level 5 still exist and could be physical items which are just another implement item and not in the armour. I hope I made clear which part of this wording is confusing.
Also an example of what is allowed when you interpret this:
The PC "Korus" is a level one battle host and chose his panoply bound to be a full-plate with transformation but because of the strange wording that his second implement is not replaced he also takes a shield as his implement for abjuration. So he has two implement schools because it never mentioned through only altering the implement class features that he has only one implement.
When the archetype says that it alters Implements it is referring to the entire Class Feature called Implements rather than the individual items called Implements. The Class Feature is being altered, not replaced. Among the alterations to the Class Feature is that you no longer get the second Implement at 1st level or the one at 5th level. Another is that your Panoply Bond Item is the Implement for all of your schools.
Well "To Alter" would also include "To Replace" and since 4 class abilities/features is being modified, they didn'the want to burden the sentence unnecessarily.
The second to last paragraph, starting by "However..." indicates in its last sentence that he only possess 1 physical item as an implementation, so I seriously doubt he gets the 2nd implement at level 1 or at a third one at level 5.
"The battle host’s bonded item serves as his implement component to cast occultist spells of all the schools that he knows."
all the schools you know are the one item, and the 1 item tells you how many schools it can have. It's replaced your implements with this new ability.
Thanks, I actually forgot this line although without this last small line it is easy to argue with the wrong interpretation of you having suddenly two implements and making battle host pretty broken^^.
The to alter is sadly as an argument pretty problematic because there are a lot of atypes which do not follow that rule which was argued in our community a lot when it came up but that last line is pretty crucial. Also another thing about the reliquarian which is really cheesy and I hope other people found a way why this is not how it actually works on raw. The reliquarian's class feature
Sacred Implement:
A reliquarian gains one implement school at 1st level. Additionally, the reliquarian gains a relic of her god, typically a holy symbol of significant age, a fixture from a lost temple, or bone or hair from a prominent historical figure of the religion. This grants the reliquarian access to one of her deity’s domains, as detailed above. Without this implement, the reliquarian cannot use her domain powers and must succeed at a concentration check to cast spells from her domain. All of a reliquarian’s future implements must be somehow representative of her faith.
This ability modifies implements.
has a problem with it only saying modifies the class feature implement as well as some others. It actually only alters focus powers. This leads to a weird little problem that abilities which modify stack with abilities which alter the class feature. So here comes the real cheese which might be possible if this really works. You take the tome eater archetype of the occultist which only alters implements but never alters focus powers so it is able to stack with reliquarian in this interpretation of reliquarian. This would result in the reliquarian giving you an additional implement for the domain while tome eater already grants you only one implement.
The thing is that they mention on stacking of archetypes especially let me quote: "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. " The important part here is alter or replaces. This is modifies and it never mentions by raw that modifies does not stack with alters or at least to the things I found it never mentions modifies.
reliquarian alter's implements. Says so in the archetype and the first line, changing it so you only get 1 implement instead of 2.
Where does it say so. It says that it makes you have one implement, the book in your body, and additional the holy symbole and it does not mention alter as long as some people and I were not blind and skimmed over alter several times.
((I am part of a community which uses almost everything which works by raw and abuses it slightly bit... so I try to find sources of evidence against such stuff although I love myself to play occultists, and I know that those things are not intended to work like this.))
It doesn't matter whether the wording is 'alters,' 'replaces,' or 'modifies.' Any change to a Class Feature makes it incompatible with another archetype that changes that Class Feature. That is complicated a bit by archetypes that only change Sub-Features of the same Feature.
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.
As someone who put in the word "modifies" in my very first piece of dev-work as a designer (the archetype was missing any text), I can assure you from the response I received from the other designers in D2 that any time you see "modifies" there it's just sloppy wording for the standard wording of alters. Incidentally, responses like in this thread (that "modifies" might be different than "alters" even though they are synonyms) are exactly why there's a standard wording.
The thing is that they usually try to be exact with their wording and they actually use for focus power alters. I guessed already that one of the freelancers confused alters and modifies here but per stupid raw reading it stacks here.
As someone who put in the word "modifies" in my very first piece of dev-work as a designer (the archetype was missing any text), I can assure you from the response I received from the other designers in D2 that any time you see "modifies" there it's just sloppy wording for the standard wording of alters. Incidentally, responses like in this thread (that "modifies" might be different than "alters" even though they are synonyms) are exactly why there's a standard wording.
I am sure that it is how it is meant but is there some official statement about that or anything else which makes the stacking of this invalid because like said "raw wording" and FAQs are mainly able to make stuff like this for power gaming invalid. Also, funnily enough, Herolab allows you to do that.
If someone tried to draw a distinction between the word alters and modifies at a game table, I'd take that with at least 100 teaspoons of salt, which for an average male in the US, is 10% under a lethal dose (to reference Futurama). A GM (for an NPC) or player (for a PC) trying to use that sort of reasoning on the group likely has deeper problems brewing than archetypes.
It doesn't matter whether the wording is 'alters,' 'replaces,' or 'modifies.' Any change to a Class Feature makes it incompatible with another archetype that changes that Class Feature. That is complicated a bit by archetypes that only change Sub-Features of the same Feature.
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.
I know that FAQ but there is exactly the stupidity of my problem... It does not mention modify once...Sooo stupid and bizarre that I need to go through all this effort to invalidate this option and I agree on a hometable I would also throw salt into their face but that is a large community of dms and a houserule based upon problematic wording needs voting and alot of weird stuff which I try to avoid by making it clear that it does not stack by raw with sources but thanks for the effort here.
Honestly if you have a large community of GMs, you might consider deciding on archetype stacking as a case by case basis as a group as it comes up; that's what my homegroup does. If all else fails, you can tell them what I said. It's not an official ruling, but in this case, it might not need to be.
Honestly if you have a large community of GMs, you might consider deciding on archetype stacking as a case by case basis as a group as it comes up; that's what my homegroup does. If all else fails, you can tell them what I said. It's not an official ruling, but in this case, it might not need to be.
Hope that helps your group!
Thank you very much although the thing by deciding for case by case makes it really have too much houserules for newbies to join in after some time :P.
If this level of dumb RAWyering is what you need to spend effort on and that stating modify is a synonym for alter and thus should be treated as such isn't good enough, then I feel the situation is a bad one to be in and I personally would highly consider getting something to change or getting out.
If this level of dumb RAWyering is what you need to spend effort on and that stating modify is a synonym for alter and thus should be treated as such isn't good enough, then I feel the situation is a bad one to be in and I personally would highly consider getting something to change or getting out.
I started to play pf in that community and am pretty used to that already. Also after running 140 games of minimal 2 hours playtime for the community within one year I will not let go so easily just because some people do rawyering but thanks, I know that you only mean this as a good advice.
