|
| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a RAW question, it's a 'what rule do you think is reasonable' question.
Spiritual weapon uses an attack bonus of caster's base attack bonus plus Wisdom modifier. This works well for clerics, who are Wisdom-based spellcasters and and originally the only class with access to the spell. Now with the APG, both inquisitors and oracles can cast it as well. This is no problem for Inquisitors, who are also Wisdom-based spellcaster, but oracles are Charisma-based.
So, if a player had an oracle, and wanted to be able to cast spiritual weapon using base attack bonus + Charisma modifier, would you (as a GM) 1: stick with RAW and just say no, 2: Allow the change as appropriate with no cost to the character, 3: Create a Cha-based version of spiritual weapon for oracles and immediately give the oracle access to it; 4: Do 2 or 3 but make acquisition of the spell a reward or adventure goal; 5: Allow the oracle to use Cha for the spell if she spends a feat, revelation, skill point, or some other resource, 6: Do something else entirely?
If you were a player, which of these options would satisfy you best?
This isn't a RAW question, it's a 'what rule do you think is reasonable' question.
Spiritual weapon uses an attack bonus of caster's base attack bonus plus Wisdom modifier. This works well for clerics, who are Wisdom-based spellcasters and and originally the only class with access to the spell. Now with the APG, both inquisitors and oracles can cast it as well. This is no problem for Inquisitors, who are also Wisdom-based spellcaster, but oracles are Charisma-based.
So, if a player had an oracle, and wanted to be able to cast spiritual weapon using base attack bonus + Charisma modifier, would you (as a GM) 1: stick with RAW and just say no, 2: Allow the change as appropriate with no cost to the character, 3: Create a Cha-based version of spiritual weapon for oracles and immediately give the oracle access to it; 4: Do 2 or 3 but make acquisition of the spell a reward or adventure goal; 5: Allow the oracle to use Cha for the spell if she spends a feat, revelation, skill point, or some other resource, 6: Do something else entirely?
If you were a player, which of these options would satisfy you best?
Ummm....I would (in this is my very personal opinion) stick to the Rules, if it says Wisdom use wisdom. Clerics can be combat oriented and Oracles are not suppose to be that way, and I don't see this as a problem. There migth be some cleric spells that use charisma and your not going to change those spells to wisdom base spells.
I think that if you chance the Ability of this spells you'll be leveling both cleric and oracle, and for the oracle spiritual wepon is a support spell, not a most have spell.
Clerics can be combat oriented and Oracles are not suppose to be that way, and I don't see this as a problem.
Battle oracle proves this a false statement -- and that's just the easiest choice for saying as much.
Many of the new spells in the APG and UM have language stating to use the casting stat of the caster -- I don't think it would be a huge stretch to extend this back to the spells in the core -- but that position isn't currently RAW.
Clerics can be combat oriented and Oracles are not suppose to be that way, and I don't see this as a problem.Battle oracle proves this a false statement -- and that's just the easiest choice for saying as much.
Many of the new spells in the APG and UM have language stating to use the casting stat of the caster -- I don't think it would be a huge stretch to extend this back to the spells in the core -- but that position isn't currently RAW.
Yeah, you are rigth....I guess an exception to the rule could be make if you are a battle oracle.
Like I said; It is my very personal opinion. If , as an oracle, you want to use wisdom for your spiritual weapon, pump up your wisdom.
But every DM has it's own set of house rules, and different types of players. I wouldn't suggest this change to my DM 'couse I know that he will say no, and I would do same with my on player. Becouse the rule is clear.
At the end depends on two things, 1. If you want to change the rule you should determine how easy or difficult you want this to be acomplish. 2. If you don't want to change the rule, just explain why you don't see it should be change.
Good luck
|
I'd say that a Battle Oracle would have access to a Cha-based Spiritual weapon for free, while oracles of the other misteries would have to burn a special feat (which would affect also other Wis-influenced spells, TBD*), otherwise they'll stick to the RAW version.
* right now I can't recall any appropriate spell, but otherwise it would be a rather hefty feat tax just for one spell. Maybe devise a trait, or favored class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a rule of thumb, I treat all spells that specify a primary casting stat as meaning 'Primary Casting Stat' for the class the spell is for. This illustrates why I treat them like this, when new classes/archetypes are added, PAIZO can't go back and errata the core rules for the spell to include 'If you are an inquisitor or oracle use CHA'. The intent is that it is the primary casting stat (because the spell was originally wis caster's only).
So, in my games, any spell that started out like spiritual weapon, and then later got added to classes with a different casting stat, use the casting stat of their class, not the original casting stat.
|
RAW was written before the Oracle class even existed so is somewhat redundant.
I would let Oracle's use their Charisma for it- why would a magical weapon granted through their magic be powered by their wisdom?
Being a total slave to RAW can sometimes be as bad as blatantly and continually flouting it.
I would use 2. Adding a cost for such a weak spell just because when the rules for spiritual weapon were created the class didn't exist is a horrible tax.
Clerics can be combat oriented and Oracles are not suppose to be that way, and I don't see this as a problem.
From a designer's standpoint I find that assertion to be fascinating. Oracles have the same HD, attack bonus, armor proficiencies, shield proficiencies, and spell list as the cleric. The only combat-specific thing a cleric gets an oracle doesn't is proficiency with her god's favorite weapon.
Both classes have a kind of theme specialization, but a cleric can take the community and knowledge domains as easily as an oracle can take the lore domain, so neither is locked in to battle-related concepts.
So what causes you to feel Oracles are not supposed to be combat oriented, compared to clerics?
So what causes you to feel Oracles are not supposed to be combat oriented, compared to clerics?
Some 40 years of D&D has taught us that Clerics very easily take up the 'warriors of the faith' mantle.
Oracles sound like a bunch of guys lying around Delphi eating grapes.
Best explanation I can think of! :)
So what causes you to feel Oracles are not supposed to be combat oriented, compared to clerics?Some 40 years of D&D has taught us that Clerics very easily take up the 'warriors of the faith' mantle.
Oracles sound like a bunch of guys lying around Delphi eating grapes.
Best explanation I can think of! :)
That's just due to an extremely poor choice of class name. If they had called them Avatar's instead, you wouldn't say that, and the class would be identical.
As a rule of thumb, I treat all spells that specify a primary casting stat as meaning 'Primary Casting Stat' for the class the spell is for. This illustrates why I treat them like this, when new classes/archetypes are added, PAIZO can't go back and errata the core rules for the spell to include 'If you are an inquisitor or oracle use CHA'. The intent is that it is the primary casting stat (because the spell was originally wis caster's only).
So, in my games, any spell that started out like spiritual weapon, and then later got added to classes with a different casting stat, use the casting stat of their class, not the original casting stat.
+1 to this
That's just due to an extremely poor choice of class name. If they had called them Avatar's instead, you wouldn't say that, and the class would be identical.
Hey, if they had called them Avatars I'd just have made a smurf joke instead. Besides, I wasn't the one who couldn't imagine Oracles fighting... I just joked about why someone else might think so. :)
Clerics can be combat oriented and Oracles are not suppose to be that way, and I don't see this as a problem.From a designer's standpoint I find that assertion to be fascinating. Oracles have the same HD, attack bonus, armor proficiencies, shield proficiencies, and spell list as the cleric. The only combat-specific thing a cleric gets an oracle doesn't is proficiency with her god's favorite weapon.
Both classes have a kind of theme specialization, but a cleric can take the community and knowledge domains as easily as an oracle can take the lore domain, so neither is locked in to battle-related concepts.
So what causes you to feel Oracles are not supposed to be combat oriented, compared to clerics?
I don't know....Is just the flavor of it...I think of oracles are more mystical. It is not a rule base thinking, is just a campaign flavor thinking.
I guess is just that wisdom makes more advantages to divines spells oriented to combat, so the cleric has the upper hand.
Save that Paizo would have to be worrying about lawsuits from James Cameroon who forced Nickelodeon to knuckle down on their upcoming Avatar sequel.
That's just due to an extremely poor choice of class name. If they had called them Avatar's instead, you wouldn't say that, and the class would be identical.
James Baboon needs a lesson in legal uses of trademark and copyright. :) Nick just didn't feel like spending all the money it would take to go to the supreme court. Unfortunately, what's legal and what's induced by legal threats are about 2000 lightyears apart.
Look at the other threads that came up in your search.
It was answered in the more recent ones (and IIRC can now be found on the official FAQ page)
It is 100% Wis only in RAW / PFS game, no other casting stat exception.
They did say something about it being a fine houserule, but the RAW was cemented not loosened. No Cha/Int Spirital Weapon or Ally.
IMHO it should have been errata'd to be "casting stat", but the powers that be didn't agree and kept it as is. Maybe when PF 2nd Ed comes out someday.
