| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been kicked around on the forums forever but I can't find any formal answer.
1) Has there ever been an official Paizo response (FAQ clarification, Dev comment, Errata update) changing Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally to be casting stat based, not just wisdom based?
Something that would be PFS valid or RAW game valid, so players in those games with Oracles, or Clerics who use Int as their casting stat, gain full use of the spell.
2) If not, and if you think it's a possible error of omission (no non-Wis casters with access to it when the core book was written), please FAQ it here. Maybe SKR or someone will see it and at least either consider the issue, it's balance implications, and edit it, or formally put it to rest that they aren't changing it for whatever reason.
I did find this post by James Jacobs, where he states he is fine with the spell as it is.
I did find this post by James Jacobs, where he states he is fine with the spell as it is.
Thanks, but while I like JJ (who doesn't?) he also points out that his stuff (regarding rules) is more personal opinion than paizo hard rules. I don't consider that official anymore, he himself tells us not to. He won't even answer most questions like that anymore because he's not the proper source and he doesn't want people confusing him with the rules devs/team (who handle deeper balance, play, and updating old rules issues) like posters had been doing.
In fact, I sort of made this post because just recently he's been telling people (I really do like Ask JJ) to do exactly what I did here... don't go to his ask JJ page for rules issues that seem odd, go here to rules question and FAQ request, because this is supposed to be the 'formal' way of players expressing concern with rules.
No, it makes it sound like we're not going to errata the Core Rulebook to refer to classes that didn't exist when the Core Rulebook was written.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure a small note in the Oracle class could work.
I was thinking the same thing. Right after the sentence "An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists.", they could add something along the lines of "Any spell that references a cleric's wisdom score uses the oracle's charisma score instead."
Of course, other spellcasting classes would need similar language, along the lines of "Any spell that references a casting attribute other than intelligence will use the witch's intelligence score instead."
But all in all, it's a pretty small fix that would cover every spell.
Basically, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If we introduce a new spontaneous caster (such as oracle or summoner) in a book, people think it's an error that the Core Rulebook Magic chapter only specifically mentions bards and sorcerers as spontaneous casters.
If we introduce a new option in a book that only has about 2 or 3 spells that interact with it (but opening the door to more spells of that type)), people think it's an error than the option is "so limited as to be worthless."
Ah, well.
I tend to agree the most logical and elegant solution would be to add clarifying tect in the APG class write-ups and issue the errata there, not re-write the Core Rule book.
Out of curiosity, is this addressed at all in PFS?
I started a thread on this, spell mastery and similar FAQ rulings regarding Sean's comment that a precedent is set for the PFS team to make rules alterations, but it got little to no traction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure a small note in the Oracle class could work.I was thinking the same thing. Right after the sentence "An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists.", they could add something along the lines of "Any spell that references a cleric's wisdom score uses the oracle's charisma score instead."
Of course, other spellcasting classes would need similar language, along the lines of "Any spell that references a casting attribute other than intelligence will use the witch's intelligence score instead."
But all in all, it's a pretty small fix that would cover every spell.
This would solve the problem entirely within the classes, and not affect the core book. It seems elegant enough.
Basically, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If we introduce a new spontaneous caster (such as oracle or summoner) in a book, people think it's an error that the Core Rulebook Magic chapter only specifically mentions bards and sorcerers as spontaneous casters.
If we introduce a new option in a book that only has about 2 or 3 spells that interact with it (but opening the door to more spells of that type)), people think it's an error than the option is "so limited as to be worthless."
Ah, well.
It's entirely possible I'm missing something, most the PF devs I've heard of have years (sometimes decades) of experience in the game industry, but even the pro's make mistakes or miss something sometimes, so I've got to ask as a follow up to this: How does Frompers solution leave Paizo/PF Devs/FAQ-Errata teams "damned if they do, damned if they don't"?
Just from casual glance, it seemed like a clean solution (at least for classes that share 99.99% of their spell lists with previous book classes).
Basically, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If we introduce a new spontaneous caster (such as oracle or summoner) in a book, people think it's an error that the Core Rulebook Magic chapter only specifically mentions bards and sorcerers as spontaneous casters.
If we introduce a new option in a book that only has about 2 or 3 spells that interact with it (but opening the door to more spells of that type)), people think it's an error than the option is "so limited as to be worthless."
Ah, well.
It's entirely possible I'm missing something, most the PF devs I've heard of have years (sometimes decades) of experience in the game industry, but even the pro's make mistakes or miss something sometimes, so I've got to ask as a follow up to this: How does Frompers solution leave Paizo/PF Devs/FAQ-Errata teams "damned if they do, damned if they don't"?
Just from casual glance, it seemed like a clean solution (at least for classes that share 99.99% of their spell lists with previous book classes).
Might I suggest taking the FAQ and going to the PFS forum and lobby to get the wording added to the PFS rules? You could still possibly get what you were after in your opening post that way.