FAQs stating "it would be a good houserule"


Website Feedback


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've noticed there have been several FAQs which basically acknowledge a discrepancy or failing in the rules, but instead of correcting the issue officially, they just "it's a perfectly reasonable house rule to do XYZ..." An example of that would be the FAQ on Oracles using spells which reference WIS (since Oracles didn't exist at the time those Cleric spells were written).

That just doesn't seem like a satisfactory FAQ to me, the FAQ is not meant to share opinions on houserules, it is about the Core Rules function. Plenty of other FAQs seem able to issue rulings which diverge from the RAW (such as the ARG Ferocious Summons entry), either just flat-out or also stating that future Errata will bring the RAW into conformance (I'm not sure why this isn't the case for all such FAQs, but that's besides the point here). So this is obviously not something that FAQs cannot do. Why not actually issue rulings which the designers feel is most in conformance with the system as a whole, i.e. go with intent and not RAW, instead of issuing FAQs that read "well, the RAW says this (which everybody can read themself) but doing XYZ would be a great house-rule". That doesn't even help anybody in PFS.

Liberty's Edge

Well, what do you want them to say? Either A take it as literally written, or B apply common sense. They can't change what the CRB actually says because the CRB has to be taken as wholly independent from the APG whereas the APG is wholly reliant upon the CRB.

I don't buy the "we need it for PFS" because that is just a cheap cop-out, in this case.


Did you read what I wrote?
In other FAQ entries, they ARE going against what the RAW says, sometimes promising future Errata, sometimes not.
If you feel PFS is a cheap cop-out, perhaps you should request Paizo cancel PFS or remove it's RAW-compliance rule.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Maybe because the designers actually believe that we have functional brains and need not to be treated as mindless zombies?

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz, that doesn't change the fact that these rules don't apply in PFS because PFS plays by RAW and the FAQs. A FAQ suggesting that you could implement a house rule isn't going to fly.

Liberty's Edge

They clarify the RAW. The "reasonable houserule" thing is an addition to that and a helpful one at that, where devs give their informed opinion about something that deviates from the RAW.

It is pretty obvious to me that the "reasonable houserule" is not intended to become the RAW. Thus PFS gets stuck with the RAW clarified in the FAQ, which is exactly the way it has worked since its inception.

Shadow Lodge

It seems like it's actually meant to be the other way around, doesn't it.

If you're writing an FAQ, that should be the new RAW, and if you're still using that rule from the rulebook instead, from before that FAQ came out, you're using what's really the houserule.

Scarab Sages

Possibly, still 'it would be a reasonable house rule' doesn't have the same meaning as 'yeah, the rule should be like that'. It just means it is a reasonable variation of the rule as written.


One of the developers once said that they put such language in there in part because of PFS; the PFS higher-ups would see that language in the FAQ, and could put that houserule into place for the PFS campaign (but wouldn't be forced to do so).

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"That would be a reasonable house rule" basically amounts to "RAW is strict and says no, but clearly the option is a reasonable one, but adding errata to the Core Rulebook would complicate other things*, so we're just going to issue a recommendation."

Note that the design team signing off on a "good house rule" means the PFS team can make that rule the default for PFS if they want to (as Are said).

* Things like "this would require us to introduce the idea of a spontaneous divine caster in the Core Rulebook, which would confuse things because there isn't such a thing in that book." Or "we can't add more text in that area because it'll push something on to the next page and mess up page references in every book we've printed."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
I've noticed there have been several FAQs which basically acknowledge a discrepancy or failing in the rules, but instead of correcting the issue officially, they just "it's a perfectly reasonable house rule to do XYZ..." An example of that would be the FAQ on Oracles using spells which reference WIS (since Oracles didn't exist at the time those Cleric spells were written).

Probably because not everyone who plays Pathfinder plays in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, so the FAQ is written for the perspective of different pools of people.

A person could be asking/looking because they want to know what is legal for PFS. They could be asking/looking because it came up in a home game, and they couldn't care less about how PFS does things. It could be purely academic interest. Or it could be some degree of crossover interest between the three.

Take the Oracle example you mentioned:

FAQ wrote:

Oracle: Can I use my Charisma modifier for cleric spells and effects that use Wisdom, such as spiritual weapon?

As written, those effects say "Wisdom" (because they were written before the idea of the oracle class as a Charisma-based caster), so an oracle has to use her Wisdom modifier.
However, it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow an oracle to use her Charisma modifier (or bonus) for cleric spells that refer to the caster's Wisdom modifier (or bonus).

This FAQ answers the question right there the first sentence. Having talked it over, the official rule by the designers is still that Oracles have to use their Wisdom modifier.

Which means if you're looking at this from the perspective of PFS, you have an answer. The rule has not changed, it is exactly as written.

Outside of PFS you also have an answer. There's a brief explanation as to why the rule is that way (it was written before the Oracle was created), you know that the official rule is still as written, but if you want to house rule it to Charisma in your home games, the designers don't see a problem with it. And while you can make any house rule you please in your home games, some people find it helpful to have some input from the developers.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Sean

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:

Did you read what I wrote?

In other FAQ entries, they ARE going against what the RAW says, sometimes promising future Errata, sometimes not.
If you feel PFS is a cheap cop-out, perhaps you should request Paizo cancel PFS or remove it's RAW-compliance rule.

Ohh Oh Oh Oh Oh Ooooohhh!

Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / FAQs stating "it would be a good houserule" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.