Fiddling with Mesmerist: Material Manipulator + Umbral Mesmerist = No Bueno?

[Levism84]

Hey Giants,

I've been fiddling with Mesmerist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/occult-adventures/occult-classes/mesmerist) lately (In the privacy of my own home, of course!) and I was looking at the Material Manipulator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/occult-adventures/occult-classes/mesmerist/archetypes/paizo-llc-mesmerist-archetypes/material-manipulator-mesmerist-archetype/) and Umbral Mesmerist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/occult-adventures/occult-classes/mesmerist/archetypes/paizo-llc-mesmerist-archetypes/umbral-mesmerist-mesmerist-archetype/) archetypes. I think they would make for an interesting build together, except for one tiny, teeny-weeny hiccup...

They both alter spellcasting.

Yes, I know, RAW "A character can take more than one archetype, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature of the base class."

Yet, the Material Manipulator expands the spell list of the Mesmerist by adding all sorcerer/wizard illusion (glamer), illusion (shadow), and transmutation spells of 6th level and lower to the Mesmerist's spell list and Umbral Mesmerist has diminished spellcasting where they cast one fewer spells at each spell level. One replaces spells known; one replaces spells per day; both alter spellcasting. Do you think a lenient GM would allow for this slight breach of RAW? Would this be game breaking? What are your thoughts?

Come on, lets all fiddle with Mesmerist together! :D

[Florian]

They just may not replace the same thing, but they can alter the same thing, so that´d work.

[dude123nice]

They just may not replace the same thing, but they can alter the same thing, so that´d work.

No they can't. If they alter the same thing they are in conflict.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

That's a common and reasonable houserule, but run it by your DM the same way you did here before stacking them.

[Florian]

No they can't. If they alter the same thing they are in conflict.

It´s more a technical detail that has to be observed on a case by case basis, depending on how it is handled with the individual archetype. Some directly alter an existing class feature (ex: Diminished Spellcasting), some add a new class feature that in turn alters an existing class feature.

I´d readily agree that the former prevents archetype stacking w/o houseruling, but the later does not, as technically both archetypes touch different parts of the base class.
In this case, we´ve got an archetype that directly alters but doesn´t replace spellcasting, and another that adds a new class feature (shadow something something will also show up in the Special Qualities section of a stat block/char sheet). Yes, that _is_ nitpicking, but some archetypes are written in a way that it works this way without conflict.

[Psyren]

RAW they cannot be combined. But that really only matters for PFS. At your own table, do what you like and enjoy. I would allow this.

[Levism84]

Thanks for the feedback, Giants!

At least I have the clarification that my RAW interpretation was correct, but I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees a house rule path for this unconventional union of archetypes.