|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Worst part is I've talked to the owner, he seems to want to make the site a great resource but he doesn't fix any of the reported mistakes.
I've reported things like the Fox Shape having a Special: line added that doesn't exist and many archetypes listed on his charts as stacking that don't stack because they modify the same class feature but lack the "This replaces/alters" language (that isn't required.)
Which is something I really wish they wouldn't do, I'm starting to have more than I can count on two hands of editorial revision by the site. It really gets frustrating to keep having to explain to players they need to look it up elsewhere before they use it.
Incorrect. Because the oracle would have to choose the hex again each day decide to pick the Lore Spirit, they would select different spells each time.
Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells with a new spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
You missed the last sentence of Arcane Enlightenment.
Mark Seifter wrote:
FAQrrangement; now we can have PComp and CS FAQs even if they aren't literally #1 in clicks like before (thus using our usual algorithm for choosing FAQs instead of the much stricter one), as long as PFS has already done the legwork for their Campaign Clarification document. Woohoo!
A FAQrrangement is an arrangement, and a cool one.
What's a PComp, CS FAQ and how does that relate to Campaign Clarifications?
I thinking I hearing that any FAQ that already has an answer in a Campaign Clarification is possible to be fast tracked with sufficient clickies on a proper FAQ thread?
Chess Pwn wrote:
Yes, I think the ability should be changed so that it does something useful, but that doesn't change what is clearly said by the text.
I will say that I hope if this gets FAQ it gets changed to not work for Oracles, as it would be broken.
So in short, I hope I'm wrong on a FAQ outcome.
I've been wrong about future FAQ very few times, because a lot of FAQ deviate from some "literal" word to use the root meaning. I believe the root meaning is that this adds spells to spells known that can then be cast.
Plus they have said they actively remove or change contradictory FAQ and this alleged contradiction (which I don't agree is one) has been pointed out often and never revised.
The Steel Refrain wrote:
Based on the progression of our discussion to date, I think we can likely agree that continuation of the discussion is unlikely to produce an overly satisfactory resolution for either of us.
On that we can agree. There isn't a snipit of a rules blurb that has yet to be found, the two sides have the same rules and FAQ to prove their position. The issue is that the interpretations differ.
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
Arcane Enlightenment adds spells *to your class spell list*, not "to my list of spells known." Literally no part of the FAQ applies except "not on my spell list."
list of shaman spells she can prepare
I read that as the opposite, as a list of spells known (as you may only prepare spells known.)
At this point I don't think everyone can be brought on the same page without a new FAQ.
I'll give you some friendly advice, from some who has GM multiple hundreds of PFS scenarios and decades of weekly non-PFS material.
Tell that player in a polite way the matter is settled, your job as GM is to adjudicate the rules, you have done so and here is the result, we shall not bring this subject up again.
The Steel Refrain wrote:
actually different - "known spell" versus "spells known...
When someone replies with something like this, you know their mind is made up and they are unwilling to accept any logic, facts, or reason.
The spells known FAQ didn't fix any issues that used the word "known spell" or "spell known". But it fixed Known spell issues that didn't also add to your class spell list.
The full line of effect rules.
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
crazy good "Pick some wizard spells" effect it has for shaman, you're trying to add a freebie "Also gain <Wisdom Mod> Spells Known.
Without addressing how good the effect is, I'll address it's legality.
Bonded Spirit (Su) A spirit guide gains one hex of her choice from the list of hexes available from that spirit
So it is granted by a class feature.
So an Oracle class feature is adding spells. The FAQ clarifies that only class features default to spells known and class spell list.
The clarification comes form 3.5 Glossary which was punted in Pathfinder.
known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.
You could consider it an unwritten rule.
In any event, there are many legal ways to do this.
Take a Magus with Greater Spell Access:
You add two non-Magus spells to your magus spellbook, then you retrain Greater Spell Access to something else.
Now you have 2 known spells in your magus spellbook, but you can't prepare them.
Another way is for a wizard to "make their own" a former magus spell book containing magus only spells. That wizard knows those magus spells. But can't cast them.
Well. It looks like this can only be solved with a FAQ. One that is something that pretty much no one ever will use as combining Spell Combat and Whirlwind is such a rare occurrence. But will be require anyway, as both sides are firmly resolved to their opinion and are using the same rules and FAQ to prove the conflicting interpretations.
unless they are added by a class feature of that same class
Oracle class has a class feature that adds spells to the Oracle class, Arcane Enlightenment feature. So same class.
Also Spells Known is for Spontaneous Class (when you add a spells known you can cast that spell) and for Prepared (like Wizards your spells known is the spells in your spellbook.) So Spells Known is applicable to both, which is why the FAQ exists in the first place. You can add a spell to a wizard spellbook that is a magus only spell. It becomes a spells known for the wizard. He knows the magus only spell. He can't cast it, because it isn't a wizard spell. But he knows it.
Again, this isn't a combo.
If this were and item or a feat designed for prepared casters, or a spell for prepared only or you chose spells that were prepared only, you wouldn't be able to cast them. But as long as you choose arcane enlightenment via Spirit Magic in Oracle and choose spells like fireball and not like meditation spells, then you are fine.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I see that FAQ paving the way for Haste and similar effects like speed weapons that add to a full attack to work. It would be taking that FAQ out of context (which we are told not to do) to allow things that replace full attack actions to work (like Whirlwind).
I fear that not only does this not work, but that somehow the clarification you're seeking will make monks weaker and druids even stronger.
I'd be just about anything the FAQ would go against IUS being a Primary Natural Weapon. I wouldn't even be surprised if Dragon Style gets another round of errata.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
The FAQ didn't cover every circumstance it broke through its general rule.
That FAQ reinforced how spells in a can items should have always worked from 1e to 3.5/PF. It was different than many players used the items.
In original 1st edition rules:
DMG p129 wrote:
Rings' spell-like abilities function as 12th level of magic use unless the power requires a higher level of magic use. The latter function at the mini- mum level of magic use necessary to cast the equivalent spell.
DMG p130 wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become in- visible at will, instantly, This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell (q.v.) ...
PHB p70 wrote:
This always comes up in every question about this subject. The rules for how magic item "spell in a can" items work has not materially changed. In 1e, rings had a CL of 12 and a duration of what ever that CL makes.
What did change is the Invisibility spell changed from indefinite duration to being duration based.
Most people conflate "ring of invisibility worked for ever because one activation of the spell worked forever" to "ring activations work forever."
Or, follow the item creation rules, to make a constant hat of disguise for 2,000gp instead of the command word for 1,800 that already exists.
Which would violate the item creation guidelines because we already have a Hat of Disguise and Greater Hat of Disguise.
8. Conclusion based on incorrect rules interpretation.
8. Correct Conclusion:
I should point out, that was a huge post. It took effort. The problem is that everyone understands how you come to your conclusion, but we don't agree with the conclusion.
causes confusion, frustration and bickering among people who are just trying to have a good time around a table together
While in almost 400 games I've been player or GM, I've seen this happen at a table only a couple times.
Generally, this is far more of a problem online and mostly related to some that cling to some sort of "only one way to read the rules".
You guys are quoting the Weapon Proficiency part of the Kensai. But the Canny Defense ability doesn't say it has to be the same as the weapon you are proficient with, just a specific "chosen weapon".
Because the author didn't think someone would cheese out inserting an unwritten rule of "you can choose any weapon, not the signature weapon you picked with your weapon proficiency."
I, as a GM, wouldn't allow that unwritten rule.