Cross-list spells and abiiliy scores.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is it assumed that spells that call out specific ability scores depending on the class they are cast by should always use the primary casting stat? My example is a Warpriest (forgepriest), which gets Mage's Sword added to it's list. Mage's Sword specificly calls out Int or Cha in it's description to determine it's attack bonus. Is it assumed that a Warpriest casting this spell would use Wisdom for this determination?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW the spell does not change the stat that determines is attack bonus. Many archetypes that grant spells form other lists specifically call out changing the stat, but in this case it does not. This may be an oversight and most GM’s will probably allow it as a house rule.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

+1 Mysterious Stranger


As I understand it, this spell and others should get the format of the newer spells calling for the casting stat.

The FAQ about the APG has an entry:
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).

In later books they did take other classes with different stats into account and put into their description that the relevant casting stat is to be used.
I don't know if they will ever streamline their spells, but I somehow doubt it after reading S. Reynolds answer on the forum regarding this (he says they are damned if they do and damned if they don't do it).

We have houseruled all such spells to run off the casting stat, since they are maybe not useless, but not terribly effective either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the issue here, is that per RAW, it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer, because it's not an issue like in the APG FAQ where it always calls out using Wisdom for a given cleric spell. This spell states:

Mage's Sword wrote:
Its attack bonus is equal to your caster level + your Intelligence bonus or your Charisma bonus (for wizards or sorcerers, respectively)

So in the case of neither being a wizard or sorcerer, there's no stat defined for the spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand WHY the situation is here - just wish Paizo could figure out a way to make things like this work - this is not one of those things that should really require GM interpretation - the spell text should just be changed to use your primary casting stat. Paizo shouldn't be comfortable with the 'well, the GM can just fix that for us - every single time it comes up - so we won't bother changing half a sentence in the book' excuse.

I really don't think this case is one of the rule inadequacy 'empowering' GM's.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vatras wrote:


The FAQ about the APG has an entry:

I always thought this was a strange FAQ. It basically admits there's a problem with how the spell functions and then just.. shrugs and tells you to house rule it.

I mean, if you're going to in an official capacity suggest a house rule why not just fix it yourself instead?


Squiggit wrote:
Vatras wrote:


The FAQ about the APG has an entry:

I always thought this was a strange FAQ. It basically admits there's a problem with how the spell functions and then just.. shrugs and tells you to house rule it.

I mean, if you're going to in an official capacity suggest a house rule why not just fix it yourself instead?

The issue is their insistence that they can only fix their game when reprinting a book. Goes back to the problem with being a publisher before a game designer I believe. APG, for instance, hasn't had an errata since 2010, and that particular FAQ was written in 2013. So it's been an issue for 6 years, been officially acknowledged for at least 3, with no expectation it will ever be fixed. Something so minor to fix too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well yeah, but they've had no problem issuing errata as FAQ in the past either.


Squiggit wrote:
Well yeah, but they've had no problem issuing errata as FAQ in the past either.

Right... I feel the FAQ should be temporary until the rules can be clarified such that the faq is not longer required. Paizo, in general, does not feel that way. You'd think that when an errata is released, the FAQ should shrink.. I don't think that's ever happened.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
You'd think that when an errata is released, the FAQ should shrink.. I don't think that's ever happened.

They did remove the errata for Feral Combat Training (the "yes, you can use it for monk unarmed damage progression" one) when they nerfed errata'd FCT.

Rysky wrote:

-_-

Pedantism doesn't help.

No. That is not pedantism. He is completely right, the FAQ doesn't work for the spell in question. The FAQ is about spells stating a specific attribute, which is something that Mage's Sword does not do for non wizards/sorcs. So only the "make your GM houserule it because we are to lazy to fix our stuff" part of the FAQ really works for the spell. There is no RAW answer because it's something the rules just don't cover. RAI is obviously "tied to casting stat".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Derklord wrote:
They did remove the errata for Feral Combat Training (the "yes, you can use it for monk unarmed damage progression" one) when they nerfed errata'd FCT.

The reason we got the FCT errata (nerf if you like) is because people incorrectly interpreted "yes you can use it with Unarmed Strike" to be "yes you can use it for monk unarmed damage progression".

They commented on threads that you could use your normal Unarmed Strike damage or your Natural damage, not that you could bump your natural up X steps.


You can always talk to your GM and come up with a spell research that is an exact copy of the spell in the book, but using another ability score instead.


Rysky wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Well, the issue here, is that per RAW, it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer, because it's not an issue like in the APG FAQ where it always calls out using Wisdom for a given cleric spell. This spell states:

Mage's Sword wrote:
Its attack bonus is equal to your caster level + your Intelligence bonus or your Charisma bonus (for wizards or sorcerers, respectively)
So in the case of neither being a wizard or sorcerer, there's no stat defined for the spell.

He made it right here.

I'm not against a FaQ being issued regarding what stat should be used for what was originally class unique spells but trying to get your point across by being pedantic is just annoying, there's better ways to go about it.

Nowhere in this quote does he state that only Wizards and Sorcerers can use the spell. He states it cannot function (correctly) without being a wizard or sorcerer. That is an entirely different statement and a correct one. Unless you are a Wizard or Sorcerer, as written, you have no ability score bonus to the attack roll.

Try reading things in context.

@James Risner, I see that, and so did CraziFuzzy, but even then the FAQ's RAW statement is not applicable (because a Warpriest is neither a Wizard nor a Sorcerer) thus forcing you to either have no ability score or to use the houserule option. Where does that leave PFS where houseruling it is not an option?

There is a legitimate question that CraziFuzzy brought up and being insulted is not a good response to that question. Frankly, it should be FAQ'd.

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Cross-list spells and abiiliy scores. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.