Level stacking of Archetypes

[MrCharisma]

Well plainly read we seem to have a majority saying that this is a clarification of the usual rules, soo ...

[Name Violation]

RAW? might work. but i see a strong argument against.

RAI? Probably meant to stack with arcane bond.

[Azothath]

FAQs are there to retroactively correct or clarify older rules and descriptive text or unclear rules. To say that the FAQ does not apply is simply ignoring official changes/clarifications. It takes considerable time for those FAQs to be published... consider all the unanswered issues.
PFS had to create it's own list of clarifications (nearly 8 yrs after the fact) as what was needed wasn't making it through the pipeline for a large distributed game...

Paizo game books are a work of art, not a science or mathematical textbook, nor are they treaties on formal logic. Much of the details and inconsistencies are left to the home GM to work out. It's a game. Publishers make money on selling books, not creating FAQs.

Hopefully, through civil discussion, users can come to a general agreement as to what problematic rules and text means and how to implement it in your game in a balanced and fair manner. Often in this forum implausible builds/interactions are suggested seeking naysayers with rule text to back up that "no". Personally I prefer to enable a concept by using existing generally acceptable rules rather than being a "negative nelly" all the time. Ultimately it is up to your home GM and group to figure out what works for them.

[bbangerter]

ShadowcatX wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

Given there is nothing in the tatoo sorcerer text that calls it out specifically as being different from the general familiar stacking rules, then we should use the general familiar stacking rules.

Except if you take it to be a specific rule for the tattoo familiar then it is specifically called out as different.

I don't, simply because there is nothing in that small block of text to indicate it should be treated any differently than stacking familiar rules would normally handle it. They both look like ducks to me.

I also note that the archetype was written in the early days of Paizo, before they really understood how much players over analyze ever detail of every word and rule. Chock it up to sloppy writing at worst. This is just general familiar stacking rules.

[ShadowcatX]

bbangerter wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

Given there is nothing in the tatoo sorcerer text that calls it out specifically as being different from the general familiar stacking rules, then we should use the general familiar stacking rules.

Except if you take it to be a specific rule for the tattoo familiar then it is specifically called out as different.

I don't, simply because there is nothing in that small block of text to indicate it should be treated any differently than stacking familiar rules would normally handle it. They both look like ducks to me.

I also note that the archetype was written in the early days of Paizo, before they really understood how much players over analyze ever detail of every word and rule. Chock it up to sloppy writing at worst. This is just general familiar stacking rules.

That's an acceptable interpretation. It might even be the intended interpretation. It would be stronger if other archetypes from that time period had the same wording, but c'est la vie. It is not, however, the only one.