RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if this has already been discussed (pardon me if it has, lol) but I was wondering what the official Paizo ruling was on what qualifies as a "priest" for the purposes of the customized summons lists as allowed in Pathfinder Society play. For example, the Asmodeus priest customized summon monster list on page 67 of AP #29 (which is listed in the table of Additional Resources: Legal for Play).
In the actual entry it says "Asmodeus' priests can use Summon Monster spells . . ." with no reference to cleric, paladin, or sorcerer/wizard only. Earlier in the Asmodeus section (p. 63 last paragraph) it list out what are considered members of the priesthood: "Asmodeus' extremely hierarchical priesthood includes clerics, sorcerers, wizards, [etc.] . . ." Additionally, under New Divine Spells on p. 67, "Infernal Healing" is listed as "cleric 1, socerer/wizard 1 (Asmodeus)" spell, indicating that a sorc/wiz worshiper of Asmodeus would get the spell.
So I was just wondering if that meant sorcerers and wizards would be allowed to access Asmodeus' customized summoning list as "priests." I actually thought it might be cool to allow it with the requirement of some proof of priesthood, like Profession (priest) or an Asmodeus Religion Trait or something like that. Whatever the requirements (or lack thereof) I was looking for an official clarification if it isn't too much of a bother. In a home game, probably not too hard to get a GM to agree to it, but PFS is a bit more stringent in its interpretations. Just wanted to be safe, lol.
|
|
The term priest usually covers divine casters such as clerics, druids and oracles.
In this case we are dealing with divine casters able to cast summon monster spells (which excludes most druids).
Mention of "sorcerer/wizard (Asmodeus)" in the the spell descriptions appears to be an error, but it would be good to have that confirmed.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
That's great and all, but what is usually covered by the term is sort of countered by the reference they set out earlier in the article claiming the priesthood included sorcerers and wizards. Also just saying it was likely a typo isn't really the answer I'm looking for. I don't want to come off badly or anything, just looking for an official response is all. Either way, if they agree or shoot me down, no worries, just wanting clarification. Granted I would cry for a few minutes for the lost awesomeness of my concept and roleplaying chances, lol, but then I'd just change my character idea.
Creative Director
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this context, "priest" means any spellcaster who worships a deity and casts a summoning spell.
We keep it vague because that way it covers spellcasting classes we haven't invented yet, or classes from 3rd party publishers as well.
And yes, this DOES mean that if a wizard worships a deity and is truly devout in his faith, he should be able to access those alternate summon monster lists as appropriate for his deity. Whether or not said religious wizard qualifies for those alternative summons is left to that wizard's GM.
NOTE: I suspect that we're not 100% consistent on these entries for the alternative summon lists in the various deity articles... but the point is to allow spellcasting worshipers of a deity, regardless of their actual class, to be able to customize their summons to match their deity. And in sidebars, where word length is more important than running text, it's better to use shorter words like "priest" than things like "spellcasting worshipers of any class" or something like that.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll talk with Hyrum about this tomorrow and we'll see if we can't codify some definition for using these within PFS play. Until then, "priest" is cleric only. Wizards and sorcerers or whatever can still cast spells on their spell list that say druid (Gozreh) for example, but until we take a look at them, only a cleric of a specific deity can use alternate summon lists granted by their god in PFSOP.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Lol, well I have to admit I liked James Jacobs' answer better, but I can understand the reasoning on both sides. I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with when you get to it, and thank you very much for looking into this. That's a big reason I love Pathfinder so much, y'all seem to actually care about your players and it really shows in the steps you take to listen and respond to us.
So thanks again!!!!
I'll talk with Hyrum about this tomorrow and we'll see if we can't codify some definition for using these within PFS play. Until then, "priest" is cleric only. Wizards and sorcerers or whatever can still cast spells on their spell list that say druid (Gozreh) for example, but until we take a look at them, only a cleric of a specific deity can use alternate summon lists granted by their god in PFSOP.
Well, the way some of the lists are presented in the APs already contradicts this, using #32 as an example. I think this is the one detailing Erastil and the sidebar for the customized summon list specifically says Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally II and III, and I am pretty sure that SNA II and III are only available to druids and rangers.
|
Creative Director
|
Well, the way some of the lists are presented in the APs already contradicts this, using #32 as an example. I think this is the one detailing Erastil and the sidebar for the customized summon list specifically says Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally II and III, and I am pretty sure that SNA II and III are only available to druids and rangers.
True, but Summon Monster is not. Summon Nature's Ally being mentioned in the same breath doesn't really mean arcanists aren't allowed. Certainly the concept of religion altering things like that is normally thought of in the context of divine spellcasters, but it's good to expand that out of just that type of class when possible.
In any event, I really don't see a problem with opening these alternate lists up to all worshipers of a deity rather than limiting it to just clerics. I'd rather see these alternate lists not PFS legal at all than see them only legal for clerics. Hopefully we'll be able to work things out!
|
I'll talk with Hyrum about this tomorrow and we'll see if we can't codify some definition for using these within PFS play. Until then, "priest" is cleric only. Wizards and sorcerers or whatever can still cast spells on their spell list that say druid (Gozreh) for example, but until we take a look at them, only a cleric of a specific deity can use alternate summon lists granted by their god in PFSOP.
thanks mark. while your at it could you look at all of them and make them legal. it has always struck me as funny that the most powerful one is approved and other ones that are mostly flavor isnt. again thanks
|
|
... And in sidebars, where word length is more important than running text, it's better to use shorter words like "priest" than things like "spellcasting worshipers of any class" or something like that.
I think that would be a grave mistake. Unclear language like that causes more trobles than can be justified by saving a single word in print.
Historically (in terms of D&D) priest was a character belonging to either the "specialty priest", cleric or druid class. If you want to diferentiate between that and a definition including arcane casters, I think you should use more explicit language.
I.e. in stead of "Asmodeus' priests" (2 words) or "priest of Asmodeus" (3 words) you should use "spellcaster worshiping Asmodeus" (3 words) or "divine spellcaster worshiping asmodeus" (4 words).
In any event, I really don't see a problem with opening these alternate lists up to all worshipers of a deity rather than limiting it to just clerics. I'd rather see these alternate lists not PFS legal at all than see them only legal for clerics. Hopefully we'll be able to work things out!
I agree with you on that. It might however be a good idea if you worked out if any sorcerer with Asmodeus as patron deity can cast those spells or if the sorcerer has to be particularly devoted, and how is that devotion quantified (maybe with a feat or trait?).
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Historically (in terms of D&D) priest was a character belonging to either the "specialty priest", cleric or druid class. If you want to diferentiate between that and a definition including arcane casters, I think you should use more explicit language.
While that's true... we're not using 2nd edition rules anymore. The word "Priest" has been returned to the "generic" bin of words we can use without meaning a specific class. Those words grow increasingly important with each new class that's invented.
When we want to differentiate between arcane and divine spellcasters, we generally say something like "Arcane Spellcaster" or "Divine Spellcaster."
"Priest," in the context of Pathfinder and Golarion, is a word we've deliberately kept safe to be used as "worshiper of a deity." It's gender neutral, it covers a wide range of class and profession types, and is super useful for that precise purpose.
|
|
... When we want to differentiate between arcane and divine spellcasters, we generally say something like "Arcane Spellcaster" or "Divine Spellcaster."
"Priest," in the context of Pathfinder and Golarion, is a word we've deliberately kept safe to be used as "worshiper of a deity." It's gender neutral, it covers a wide range of class and profession types, and is super useful for that precise purpose.
It would be useful if that definition was included in an official glossary.
Bumping for official official clarification on Society Play.
James Jacob made it seem pretty clear- but that doesn't always determine how it will be in society play. I would really like a clarification from Mark or Hyrum, especially since Mark was leaning in the opposite direction.
I hope PFS goes with the more open definition of "priest = anyone who worships the god." After all, it would just be ridiculous if an Infernal Binder didn't have access to the Asmodeous Summon list....
|
Bumping for official official clarification on Society Play.
James Jacob made it seem pretty clear- but that doesn't always determine how it will be in society play. I would really like a clarification from Mark or Hyrum, especially since Mark was leaning in the opposite direction.
I hope PFS goes with the more open definition of "priest = anyone who worships the god." After all, it would just be ridiculous if an Infernal Binder didn't have access to the Asmodeous Summon list....
Yup. Playing a Wizard going for Diabolist, would love to be able to actually summon more Devils/ Creatures of Hell.
A GAAV for SM3 would be awesome.
|
|
I consider James' clarification both official and PFS relevant.
I don't expect you will see Mark or Hyrum commenting on this as well. James was quite clear and further comments would be redundant; they only have so mutch time.
Except that Mark's response above does not mesh with James' clarification, and Mark said he and Hyrum would discuss it further and get back to us on whether all that James' allows will be allowed in PFS.
|
Except that Mark's response above does not mesh with James' clarification, and Mark said he and Hyrum would discuss it further and get back to us on whether all that James' allows will be allowed in PFS.
I believe that Mark and Hyrum are taking a more cautious approach to posting rule decisions like these following the announcement that rules decisions are not official until they hit the new OP Guide. I'm sure we'll get something sooner than later, but with the Gen Con rush, I'm willing to bet that the answer to this question is about 8,430 on their mind.
Except that Mark's response above does not mesh with James' clarification, and Mark said he and Hyrum would discuss it further and get back to us on whether all that James' allows will be allowed in PFS.I believe that Mark and Hyrum are taking a more cautious approach to posting rule decisions like these following the announcement that rules decisions are not official until they hit the new OP Guide. I'm sure we'll get something sooner than later, but with the Gen Con rush, I'm willing to bet that the answer to this question is about 8,430 on their mind.
I'm really tired of the "we're too busy preparing for a future event to service our current customers" excuse.
The question has been asked, and Mark said that a clarification would be forthcoming (this nearly three months ago). Since then, James Jacobs has issued a post which conflicts with Mark's ruling. Is James post a ruling? Or personal opinion? James has previously said that most/all of his posts that are not in the rules forum should be regarded as personal opinion. The current rule is that on-line rulings are not official unless placed into a rules document.
So where does this leave the originating poster? Apparently, since "priest" is not defined anywhere, and the material in question is defined as legal for play, he can either choose:
a) There are no "priests", until a "priest" class exists, the summon lists are moot.
b) Any divine class with the specified deity is a "priest" and can thus use the expanded summon list.
No matter which choice he picks, he's still at the mercy of whatever DM he happens to sit down with.
Really, this no ruling is really a ruling until it's in a rules source isn't very helpful. It would be simpler to just say "We're not going to make a ruling. Talk with your local GM. Be careful at a convention, as whatever GM you get might totally disagree with the plain text wording of any aspect of the rules, and may simply rule your character illegal simply because he doesn't like it."
Was this a snarky post? Yes. Are there strong elements of truth in it? I believe so. Was this a troll? I hope not. I've seen countless posts of "so-and-so deserves whatever they get shafted with for having the audacity to play a character I don't like", without the posts being labeled as trolling. It's only fair game to be able to respond equally vehemently if one does not share the "shaft-the-player" mentality.
|
Except that Mark's response above does not mesh with James' clarification, and Mark said he and Hyrum would discuss it further and get back to us on whether all that James' allows will be allowed in PFS.I believe that Mark and Hyrum are taking a more cautious approach to posting rule decisions like these following the announcement that rules decisions are not official until they hit the new OP Guide. I'm sure we'll get something sooner than later, but with the Gen Con rush, I'm willing to bet that the answer to this question is about 8,430 on their mind.I'm really tired of the "we're too busy preparing for a future event to service our current customers" excuse.
The question has been asked, and Mark said that a clarification would be forthcoming (this nearly three months ago). Since then, James Jacobs has issued a post which conflicts with Mark's ruling. Is James post a ruling? Or personal opinion? James has previously said that most/all of his posts that are not in the rules forum should be regarded as personal opinion. The current rule is that on-line rulings are not official unless placed into a rules document.
So where does this leave the originating poster? Apparently, since "priest" is not defined anywhere, and the material in question is defined as legal for play, he can either choose:
a) There are no "priests", until a "priest" class exists, the summon lists are moot.
b) Any divine class with the specified deity is a "priest" and can thus use the expanded summon list.
No matter which choice he picks, he's still at the mercy of whatever DM he happens to sit down with.
Really, this no ruling is really a ruling until it's in a rules source isn't very helpful. It would be simpler to just say "We're not going to make a ruling. Talk with your local GM. Be careful at a convention, as whatever GM you get might totally disagree with the plain text wording of any aspect of the rules, and may simply rule your...
Except that Mark did make a ruling above. He only mentioned that they were also going to discus it afterward. You ignored that part completely.
I do agree that they should have gotten back to this. But they are busy and didn't (and/or forgot to follow up) If you can't handle this then perhaps Organized Play isn't for you. This will happen over and over again. (It happens all the time in OP)
Also James has said over and over that he is not the voice of PFS. He gave his view of what the rule meant only. He is never the officail rule for PFS.
Until they do get back to us, we can follow what Mark said above:
Until then, "priest" is cleric only. Wizards and sorcerers or whatever can still cast spells on their spell list that say druid (Gozreh) for example, but until we take a look at them, only a cleric of a specific deity can use alternate summon lists granted by their god in PFSOP.
Until they do get back to us, we can follow what Mark said above:
Except that under the new rules and clarifications policy, that ruling/clarification by Mark is entirely optional. Which leaves the player with no ruling.
"Too busy" is the excuse people give when they can't be bothered to follow through.
|
|
Until they do get back to us, we can follow what Mark said above:Except that under the new rules and clarifications policy, that ruling/clarification by Mark is entirely optional. Which leaves the player with no ruling.
"Too busy" is the excuse people give when they can't be bothered to follow through.
It's also the excuse they give when they are 'too busy'.
PFS isn't their full-time job. They actually ARE busy. (though I do agree 3 months is a bit much)
|
|
Or is it possible you're looking to separate occupation from class? Presumably anyone with Knowledge religion and is versed in the particular rituals, and temporally vested in the office, can function as a Priest as far as conducting a church, even if he's not one that can cure wounds or raise the dead.In this context, "priest" means any spellcaster who worships a deity and casts a summoning spell.
We keep it vague because that way it covers spellcasting classes we haven't invented yet, or classes from 3rd party publishers as well.
And yes, this DOES mean that if a wizard worships a deity and is truly devout in his faith, he should be able to access those alternate summon monster lists as appropriate for his deity. Whether or not said religious wizard qualifies for those alternative summons is left to that wizard's GM.
NOTE: I suspect that we're not 100% consistent on these entries for the alternative summon lists in the various deity articles... but the point is to allow spellcasting worshipers of a deity, regardless of their actual class, to be able to customize their summons to match their deity. And in sidebars, where word length is more important than running text, it's better to use shorter words like "priest" than things like "spellcasting worshipers of any class" or something like that.
The problem with this is that James doesn't have the say when it come to PFS (tho he does has some influence). Mark does. So we have to go with Mark's clarification until the new guide comes out in July.
|
|
Until they do get back to us, we can follow what Mark said above:Except that under the new rules and clarifications policy, that ruling/clarification by Mark is entirely optional. Which leaves the player with no ruling.
"Too busy" is the excuse people give when they can't be bothered to follow through.
Yes, and we have all been told that a new guide (read: official rules document) is not coming out until Season 3 starts after Gen Con. As such, this clarification or optional ruling wouldn't be made official until then anyways. Quit whining.
Yes, and we have all been told that a new guide (read: official rules document) is not coming out until Season 3 starts after Gen Con. As such, this clarification or optional ruling wouldn't be made official until then anyways. Quit whining.Until they do get back to us, we can follow what Mark said above:Except that under the new rules and clarifications policy, that ruling/clarification by Mark is entirely optional. Which leaves the player with no ruling.
"Too busy" is the excuse people give when they can't be bothered to follow through.
Not whining, stop your trolling. The ruling, or lack of doesn't affect me one way or another.
Accepting your point that the official rules guide doesn't come out until sometime in August, we're simply left with conflicting views on the part of Paizo staff as to what constitutes a "priest".
And back to the point I made of a player can either assume that
a) all divine casters of the deity are "priests"
b) there is no such class as a "priest", and thus no character can use the expanded summon lists.
The first choice puts the character at the whim of whatever GM he meets, while the second makes moot the legality of the material.
|
|
Not whining, stop your trolling.
You know, you didn't like it very much when someone else accused you of trolling in another thread, and you even had I think Mark ask the other party to not throw around that word willy nilly.
So please, don't you start now too.
As for the topic at hand... I don't understand what the huge deal is on not having an official ruling for a few months on such a fringe case.
How many actual players do you think this will affect? Additionally, if these players are unclear on what "priest" means, and don't know if it has any meaning beyond Cleric for Summon Monster and Druid for Summon Nature's Ally, then they will most likely post here and ask? So any "unofficial" clarification they get, they can print out and take to a table with them for the GM to see.
If they don't ask, and they are unclear on what "priest" means, and they choose to make a choice that isn't somewhat obvious (cleric or druid) then I'm sorry, that is their own fault for not at least coming to the boards to ask the question or see if an answer has already been given.
I don't understand why you are consistently so up in arms about how things are being run.
|
|
Fozzy,
I am sorry you are having these issues with the ruling, but I do not believe it is as complex as you believe it is.
The timing of Hyrum's announcement shouldn't matter.
While Mark's comment was made in February, Hyrum's announcement is very clear that any comment made on these forums should be considered optional until they are added to an official source, such as the OP guide or the FAQ. So while Mark has clarified that only clerics, and not "divine casters" or other classes can be priests, that ruling is not official. That means that until being posted in an official source, priests can be considered any individual, as was intended by the original design of the word in Pathfinder. That's not to say that Mark make the clarification official by posting it in the FAQ or OP guide, but rather today, as-it-stands his ruling is a gentle reminder, nothing more."
Now that being said, Hyrum also stated that GMs should be reminding players of potential upcoming rules clarifications. In this case, Mark stated what he intends to do with the rule over priests. You should not be surprised when the rule is clarified to include only priests though and playing "on the edge" so to speak means that you may have to adapt your character at a later date. Also, many (good) GMs will enforce the priest title on your character, and want to make sure you're playing the priestly type to the appropriate degree. Being a priest is a lot more than just a word you write on your sheet.
Of course, Mark could come out here and clarify this comment into obsolescence, but I really don't see how this is confusing.
Not whining, stop your trolling.
You know, you didn't like it very much when someone else accused you of trolling in another thread, and you even had I think Mark ask the other party to not throw around that word willy nilly.
So please, don't you start now too.
What I objected to was the person attacking the poster, and not the topic. Which is why I responded to you similarly. If you want to make this personal, don't. And I won't either.
And No, I did not have Mark ask anyone to do anything.
As for the number of possible affected persons - well, there are 8 of 17 base classes that can potentially summon something. And there are 14000+ PFS players. So just making a gross estimate, maybe like 7000 people are possibly affected by the ruling.
There is a third possible use of the word priest. Anyone with ranks in "Profession (Priest)", which I believe the original poster said his character had taken, in order to qualify as a "priest" of Asmodeus.
This actually seems like a more valid approach than saying only clerics get to be "priests" to me. It suggests an actual character commitment of non-refundable resources.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until they do get back to us, we can follow what Mark said above:Except that under the new rules and clarifications policy, that ruling/clarification by Mark is entirely optional. Which leaves the player with no ruling.
"Too busy" is the excuse people give when they can't be bothered to follow through.
Ahem. No.
"Too Busy" is the excuse people give at Paizo when they're actually and legitimately too busy.
Right now, the editorial staff at Paizo is about 8 days away from the "ship to the printer or it won't be at Gen Con deadline." This means we are, indeed, INCREDIBLY busy. And have been for a few months.
I'm sorry if that frustrates you. It frustrates everyone here at Paizo to have to pick and choose the projects and tasks that have to be done and not attend to problems that can wait until after Gen Con.
In any case, "priest" in the general context of the game DOES mean anyone who worships that deity. Be they a cleric, wizard, fighter, rogue, naga, awakened badger, pig farmer, or whatever. If a "priest" can cast summon monster spells, they get access to that list.
HOWEVER: In the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign... not everything in the rules are available for players. Item creation is a great example. A massive org play campaign is a different beast than a home game (which the rules are intended for first and foremost), and as such we need to not only be a lot more strict with rules in the org play game to ensure fairness, but we have to be careful about what we DO let into the org play environment. And careful = taking it slow, more often than not.
I DO hope that Mark & Hyrum eventually decide to let the Priest = any worshiper of that deity stand since it IS the intent for how things work... but again, not everything in Golarion and Pathfinder is legal or a good idea for org play. And one thing that's for SURE not good with org play is to let in a rule, let players use it and enjoy it, and then when a few players find a loophole and abuse it and ruin it for everyone, we have to go back on our ruling and remove the rule from play and that's even more disruptive.
So please, be patient. Getting antagonistic or insulting doesn't really do anything but make all of us look bad.
Fozzy,
I am sorry you are having these issues with the ruling, but I do not believe it is as complex as you believe it is.
The timing of Hyrum's announcement shouldn't matter.
While Mark's comment was made in February, Hyrum's announcement is very clear that any comment made on these forums should be considered optional until they are added to an official source, such as the OP guide or the FAQ. So while Mark has clarified that only clerics, and not "divine casters" or other classes can be priests, that ruling is not official. That means that until being posted in an official source, priests can be considered any individual, as was intended by the original design of the word in Pathfinder. That's not to say that Mark make the clarification official by posting it in the FAQ or OP guide, but rather today, as-it-stands his ruling is a gentle reminder, nothing more."
Now that being said, Hyrum also stated that GMs should be reminding players of potential upcoming rules clarifications. In this case, Mark stated what he intends to do with the rule over priests. You should not be surprised when the rule is clarified to include only priests though and playing "on the edge" so to speak means that you may have to adapt your character at a later date. Also, many (good) GMs will enforce the priest title on your character, and want to make sure you're playing the priestly type to the appropriate degree. Being a priest is a lot more than just a word you write on your sheet.
Of course, Mark could come out here and clarify this comment into obsolescence, but I really don't see how this is confusing.
Not really having issue. The nuts and bolts of the actual ruling intrigues me though.
As you said, you have two viewpoints:
1) Mark - Priests are only clerics.
2) James - Priest is a generic term meant to signify any divine class associated with a particular deity.
The ramifications if Mark's ruling makes its way into print are interesting in that you will have source books using the word "priest" with the intention of it meaning one thing, while the company-sponsored campaign will interpret that word entirely differently.
It's similar to the ramifications that I commented on in the Animal Companion/Familiar thread. The ruling by Mark about animals and how no matter what their INT is, or if they are later regarded as magical beasts, has ramifications that apply to familiars, even if people don't like the ramifications.
It's one of those things about trying to keep a rules set consistent, and how small changes can have unintended consequences that interest me.
|
Creative Director
|
It's one of those things about trying to keep a rules set consistent, and how small changes can have unintended consequences that interest me.
The thing to remember is that rules in the game and rules in the game for org play are NOT consistent.
It's obviously good when they are, but they can't always be the same due to the realities of how a massive public org play campaign has to be run.
And "Priest = cleric" won't be going into print for the world or the rules at all, because that's not the case. When we want to talk about clerics, we use the word cleric. When we want to talk about worshipers of a deity or philosophy or faith, we use the word priest.
|
|
Not whining, stop your trolling.
You know, you didn't like it very much when someone else accused you of trolling in another thread, and you even had I think Mark ask the other party to not throw around that word willy nilly.
So please, don't you start now too.
As for the topic at hand... I don't understand what the huge deal is on not having an official ruling for a few months on such a fringe case.
How many actual players do you think this will affect? Additionally, if these players are unclear on what "priest" means, and don't know if it has any meaning beyond Cleric for Summon Monster and Druid for Summon Nature's Ally, then they will most likely post here and ask? So any "unofficial" clarification they get, they can print out and take to a table with them for the GM to see.
If they don't ask, and they are unclear on what "priest" means, and they choose to make a choice that isn't somewhat obvious (cleric or druid) then I'm sorry, that is their own fault for not at least coming to the boards to ask the question or see if an answer has already been given.
I don't understand why you are consistently so up in arms about how things are being run.
Well, it affects my character, who is an oracle of nature and worships Erastil. I had actually bought one of the books (13.99 down the drain if they really do decide it only applies to clerics)with the expanded summonings for Erastil just for that character. I've been waiting to play her until I know the answer to this question, really. So it is going to affect at least some people. It would be nice to have an answer for sure.
However, it should be noted that I think Hyrum and Mark are doing a great job with PFS and I appreciate how generally responsive they are despite the fact that they ARE really busy with other things. I can certainly wait.
For the record, it would be nice if they expanded it to at least the divine casters instead of just Clerics. But I think Mark wanted to make a quick clarification on a “for now” basis, while he and Hyrum found time to discuss it and all its ramifications.
|
|
Not whining, stop your trolling.
You know, you didn't like it very much when someone else accused you of trolling in another thread, and you even had I think Mark ask the other party to not throw around that word willy nilly.
So please, don't you start now too.
As for the topic at hand... I don't understand what the huge deal is on not having an official ruling for a few months on such a fringe case.
How many actual players do you think this will affect? Additionally, if these players are unclear on what "priest" means, and don't know if it has any meaning beyond Cleric for Summon Monster and Druid for Summon Nature's Ally, then they will most likely post here and ask? So any "unofficial" clarification they get, they can print out and take to a table with them for the GM to see.
If they don't ask, and they are unclear on what "priest" means, and they choose to make a choice that isn't somewhat obvious (cleric or druid) then I'm sorry, that is their own fault for not at least coming to the boards to ask the question or see if an answer has already been given.
I don't understand why you are consistently so up in arms about how things are being run.
Well, it affects my character, who is an oracle of nature and worships Erastil. I had actually bought one of the books (13.99 down the drain if they really do decide it only applies to clerics)with the expanded summonings for Erastil just for that character. I've been waiting to play her until I know the answer to this question, really. So it is going to affect at least some people. It would be nice to have an answer for sure.
However, it should be noted that I think Hyrum and Mark are doing a great job with PFS and I appreciate how generally responsive they are despite the fact that they ARE really busy with other things. I can certainly wait.
As Oracles don't (usually) worship a singular god, but a pantheon to do with their chosen mystery, I could see this being abused in the case of the Oracle.
|
|
As Oracles don't (usually) worship a singular god, but a pantheon to do with their chosen mystery, I could see this being abused in the case of the Oracle.
And I think that this is a specific case of the general reason why there are 2 views on this from the Paizo staff.
In a home campaign, a GM knows if a player has role-played their character as having a strong enough link to their god to be "a priest".
When you sit down with a bunch of strangers to GM org play, you have no idea how someone has played their character in the past. A player could write down that they are a "priest" of whoever they like, there is no mechanical disadvantage for doing so. And a rule could be created to for something like a skill prerequisite, but that is still going to be an org play specific rule.
|
|
As Oracles don't (usually) worship a singular god, but a pantheon to do with their...I can certainly see your point on that. I'd have to argue, if I were GM, that if such an oracle didn't worship that singular god, then he/she wouldn't have access to the customized summon lists, which are only for priests of that singular god.
My oracle is, though, built to worship a singular god and really, so is every other PFS oracle that I've seen. I think that any divine caster who worships that god/goddess as their singular, patron deity should have access to expanded lists for the spells they're able to cast on their spells lists. But again, I can wait. :)
I can agree with your point on those that have chosen the singular god thing.
My Main characret is a Battle Oracle who has stayed with the pantheon idea. It just doesn't sit right with me that people choose to keep them singular. Feels like going againgst the flavor of the class (and according to at least one post by Mr. Jacobs, one of the reasons the class was created).
*shrug* To each their own.
|
|
As Oracles don't (usually) worship a singular god, but a pantheon to do with their...I can certainly see your point on that. I'd have to argue, if I were GM, that if such an oracle didn't worship that singular god, then he/she wouldn't have access to the customized summon lists, which are only for priests of that singular god.
My oracle is, though, built to worship a singular god and really, so is every other PFS oracle that I've seen. I think that any divine caster who worships that god/goddess as their singular, patron deity should have access to expanded lists for the spells they're able to cast on their spells lists. But again, I can wait. :)
I can agree with your point on those that have chosen the singular god thing.
My Main characret is a Battle Oracle who has stayed with the pantheon idea. It just doesn't sit right with me that people choose to keep them singular. Feels like going againgst the flavor of the class (and according to at least one post by Mr. Jacobs, one of the reasons the class was created).
*shrug* To each their own.
On the other hand, I have a battle oracle who was a slave, and freed himself. Now that he is not a slave, it makes perfect sense that he worships Cayden Cailean specifically.
|
|
Actually Oracles don't necessarily worship at all. Unlike clerics who come to their path through devotion and choice, Oracles are drafted into service and made vessels of the Mysteries they embody. Some may even detest the Mystery they are forced to serve.
This is true. Clerics are granted power by choice, where Oracles are afflicted by their power simply by the will of the Gods. The reason for that affliction doesn't even have to be understood by humanity, and I can see many oracles both happy and unhappy with this situation.
An oracle of battle who grew up in Mendev might start worshiping Iomedae regularly; the oracle of bones with the affliction curse might detest the all of the gods for turning him into the monstrosity he is; an oracle of the heavens may not even understand who gave him powers or even why and just live life oblivious to religion altogether, constantly searching the stars for his patron. All are legitimate uses of the oracle class.