|
We can't errata Spell Mastery in the Core Rulebook to mention three classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook, that'll just confuse people who only have the Core Rulebook.
We can give the green light for anyone to houserule it to affect those classes, and that sets a precedent for the PFS team to make that an official ruling for PFS play.
In light of this recent post from SKR located here, is there any chance of PFS adopting the encouraged (but technically un-erratable) flexible rulings for spell mastery and/or spiritual weapon?
|
The real problem here is that the FAQ given for this says "it is a perfectly reasonable houserule".
This wording conflicts, most notably for PFS - is it a binding FAQ that we can use in PFS, or is it a houserule that we can't?
If it's the latter, do we need to re-FAQ a thread like this one to make it PFS legal?
|
Btw, it was specifically clarified in a recent FAQ that spiritual weapon is working as intended. Some spells are just better for Clerics than for other classes. There are Oracle only spells (oracle's burder), so why can't there be cleric only spells?
I do would like Spell Mastery to be allowed for all spellcasters though.
|
|
My point wasn't to debate or push for any particular inclusion of a rule; I just listed the two relevant to Sean's quote. That statement about these technically un-errata-ble points setting a precedent for PFS rules changes is noteworthy and just a bit surprising. I'm not aware of any PFS rules that deviate from RAW, barring limits on additional resources. Having the "PFS team" make rulings affecting play based on a precedent set by FAQ-encouraged houserules (that can't be errata'd due to CRB not referencing other material) would be something new, and Sean stating that it is possible is significant.
@CRobledo - Do you know where that spiritual weapon commentary was? I wanted to be able to provide it to one of my PFS home game players.