Changing the game via FAQs

[pauljathome]

The recent spate of questions about SLAs qualifying for Prestige Classes has made me realize that Paizo is starting to do something that is making me very unhappy.

It is making fairly substantial changes to the game in FAQs. FAQs that now often have nothing to do with answering questions about unclear parts of the game. FAQs that frequently are very unclear.

And when its pointed out that the FAQs are unclear their response is to often just say that it is answered in the FAQ.

Let me address that last issue first. If several people question what a FAQ means then the FAQ is NOT clear. It doesn't matter what the author thinks. If several readers aren't understanding the intent then the FAQ is NOT clear. When 43 people FAQ a question on the boards saying "Answered in the FAQ" is NOT acceptable. I understand that the FAQ itself can't be immediately updated but a developer could easily make a post in the forum.

But this is only part of the problem. The other part is that suddenly we're playing different games depending on how much attention we pay to the message boards and FAQs. Even if the FAQs are crystal clear not everybody is going to read the FAQs and people are going to read them at different times.

This problem is incredibly exacerbated in PFS, especially when we're talking about rules where the change means that a character that was illegal is now legal. Suddenly, a GM who has read all the FAQs may allow a particular character, a GM who hasn't won't.

One of the reasons that I stopped playing 4th edition is that I no longer had a clue what was legal with the 50 odd pages of errata just for the core rulebook. My books had become all but useless. Pathfinder is a LONG way from that state but it is heading down that road.

Obviously some errata and FAQs are necessary. But, please please please don't make more changes than you actually have to. And, if you DO make changes, please make the change VERY clear and think out all the ramifications. And, if it turns out that your wording wasn't as clear as you wanted it to be or if it turns out there were unanticipated ramifications please answer the questions in the messageboards AND update the FAQ as soon as reasonably possible.

Note that the above has nothing at all to do with this particular change. I actually kind of like the change myself. But I dislike the fact that it was made (the improvement isn't worth the cost) and HATE the way that it was made.

[Kazaan]

Strictly speaking, a FAQ doesn't "change" anything. It's always been that way... people just didn't realize it, ignored it, tried to rationalize it, etc. Sometimes, it's inadvertent; lack of savvy with the mechanics of the system can lead you to an incorrect conclusion or ambiguity in some word-choice in the manual from the editing process of cutting down the number of pages can lead to the intended mechanics being obfuscated. Other times, it's a matter of ignorance; since the way it's written is inconvenient, it must be wrong (see Spell Combat/Haste issue). But, in nearly all these cases, the purpose of the FAQ is to overcome incorrect conclusions from the Rules as Written. When people thought they could use Haste with Spell Combat, they were wrong all along. When people thought they could Vital Strike on a Charge or the first attack of a Full Attack, they were wrong all along. When people thought that Magic Fang affects only one limb used for Unarmed Strike, they were wrong all along. So on and so forth. Sometimes, a FAQ will indicate that RAW was incorrect and prompt for an errata to be released, such as with the Sunder limited to Attack action error. When people question a FAQ answer, more often than not it's because that answer clarifies the matter contrary to what those people would have preferred; they understand the clarification, but disagree with it. Now, granted, occasionally, there is contradiction in FAQ answers, most prominently being the Racial Heritage/Halfbreed FAQs. These kinds of issues are few and far between. Lastly, sometimes, the FAQ clarifies something that the devs themselves didn't previously anticipate but, on deeper inspection of the mechanics, realized for themselves and passed that realization along to the rest of us (Flurry of Blows comes to mind, as does Vital Strike). When a new FAQ seemingly contradicts previous "unofficial" statements from individuals on the team, it indicates that the devs themselves had to ask themselves the question and really think about the answer, in some cases, deciding that their previous interpretation was in error. These are the best kinds of changes for a developer; kind of like a "level up" in system development.

[Tempestorm]

For home games the FAQ's, message boards, et al. are not needed. Period.

We don't worry about how things are FAQ'ed or not. We have a question we open our books and make a decision by what is written there and how we interput it... with our Minds! We don't go scouring the messageboards and FAQ's to se how it "supposed" to be done. I paid good money for my books, I intend to utilize them (and that doesn't mean printing out 100 pages of FAQ sheets to stuff in the pages).

For Society games, on the other hand, it is necessary to keep up on what is Legal for Society play. But even then I doubt many people scour every FAQ to ensure that their Society games are being ran "just right".

/shrug

I could be wrong though.

[pauljathome]

Kazaan wrote:

Strictly speaking, a FAQ doesn't "change" anything. It's always been that way

That is indeed the theory. I'd strongly claim that is NOT always the practice.

The recent FAQ on SLA is, in my opinion, a clear change to the rules.

[Kazaan]

pauljathome wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Strictly speaking, a FAQ doesn't "change" anything. It's always been that way

That is indeed the theory. I'd strongly claim that is NOT always the practice.

The recent FAQ on SLA is, in my opinion, a clear change to the rules.

How so? How is it any different from saying that Spell Combat doesn't benefit from Haste or that Monks can't get an extra attack from both TWF and Flurry of Blows on the same action? All that was clarified is that, even though it's a "spell-like ability", it still represents the ability to "cast" a particular spell, though you "cast" it in a much more natural and intuitive way... even more natural and intuitive than Sorcerer or Bard's spontaneous casting. How should that "not count" as being able to "cast" a particular spell or class of spell for various prerequisites? Now, by contrast, if you have an supernatural ability such as Abundant Step which, just so happens, to mimic the behavior of a particular spell, that's a whole other animal. This is, apparently, why Dimensional Agility calls out Abundant Step in addition to being able to "cast" Dimension Door; not to separate Spells from SLAs but rather to separate SLAs from SUs. And it's always been this way. I, myself, have advocated from a mistaken position that Dimensional Agility segregates Spells from SLAs. Now, I know that I was incorrect in that and I've adjusted my concepts accordingly.

[bugleyman]

SLAs counting as spells is nowhere in the CRB. Spells and SLAs are different things. They have different names, different rules that govern their behavior and use, and different methods of acquisition. One counting as the other isn't even implied. To say that has always been the case is completely unfounded. Maybe the developers intended it (which I also doubt), but it wasn't in the RAW.

Therefore, this is a change. Pretty obvious, really.

[Jiggy]

bugleyman wrote:

SLAs counting as spells is nowhere in the CRB.

CRB wrote:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.

<lists some exceptions>
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

bugleyman wrote:

One counting as the other isn't even implied.

CRB wrote:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.

<lists some exceptions>
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

bugleyman wrote:

Pretty obvious, really.

[Kazaan]

@Jiggy: *slow clap*

[Buri]

Who was it a couple months ago saying in clear black and white that spell-like abilities weren't spells? Was that just posters or was it one of the design folks?

[Joe M.]

Buri wrote:

Who was it a couple months ago saying in clear black and white that spell-like abilities weren't spells? Was that just posters or was it one of the design folks?

Here is where SKR retracted that black-and-white. I've changed the bolding to something more relevant to this discussion.

What's especially striking here, it seems to me, is SKR's wish for SLAs that are "exactly like spells in every way possible." This suggests that the new FAQs and their implications are completely intentional.

So the rule is that SLAs are just like spells in every way unless there's an explicit rule to the contrary. Which is what the CRB basically says, as Jiggy quotes: "Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name."

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

Specifically, this part:

The Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

SLAs are not spells. SLAs merely duplicate the effects of spells and can be disrupted like spells, but they don't come with the innate know-how of "a spell is element X, Y, and Z, combined for a specific effect," which is the sort of knowledge you need to incorporate a spell into a magic item. An SLA is "I think really hard, and this neat thing happens," it's a shorthand way of creating/manipulating a power that you don't actually understand. It's like knowing that you want to create a rabbit with glowing fur, and you have one guy who studied glowing jellyfish and understand how the genes work, and another guy who can cut open a glow-stick to let all the toxic glowing chemicals out.

emphasis mine.

I found rules text that says otherwise, thus the new FAQ about crafting magic items with SLAs. Which pleases me, as I like the idea of a demon or whatever being able to craft magic items without having to take levels in a spellcasting class.

Would the game be simpler if spell-like abilities worked exactly like spells in every way possible? Hell yeah. But we inherited some 3.5 text and didn't get a chance to change it when making PF, so we're stuck with the little technicalities (such as spell trigger items). Ah, well.

[LazarX]

pauljathome wrote:

This problem is incredibly exacerbated in PFS, especially when we're talking about rules where the change means that a character that was illegal is now legal. Suddenly, a GM who has read all the FAQs may allow a particular character, a GM who hasn't won't.

If someone is going to use a character build that relies on obscure FAQ readings, it is their responsibility to print out the appropriate material , preferably in a way that determines it's source.

Players who are relying instead on interpretations of FAQs that don't directly address their corner build are quite literally asking for trouble. Just because FAQ answers issue A, doesn't mean it resolves issue B when B is something that kinda sounds like A, but isn't A.

[Jiggy]

LazarX wrote:

Players who are relying instead on interpretations of FAQs that don't directly address their corner build are quite literally asking for trouble. Just because FAQ answers issue A, doesn't mean it resolves issue B when B is something that kinda sounds like A, but isn't A.

Is there a particular part of the topic at hand that you feel fits this description, or was this more of a generalized statement?

[Drachasor]

I'll certainly add that there are FAQs that do change the rules and often adjudicating what those changes mean is unclear. I've seen a FAQ or two in my short time here that explicitly is contradicted by RAW:

The first one that comes to mind is Aasimar not getting proficiency with all martial weapons. I'm not saying that they should, mind you, but that's what the RAW says. They are outsiders, a TRAIT of outsiders (not part of what comes from Outsider Hit Dice) says they are proficient with all martial weapons. It's right there with the fact they breath. In a separate section before Traits the benefits of Outsider Hit Dice are explained. Rather than have Errata saying the Martial Weapon Prof should be moved, they just acted like the rules said what they wanted them to say. I very much dislike this, as it means they can just declare what the rules explicitly says as untrue. Ugh! There are other examples and I'll see about digging one up.

Now with the SLA issue, I do actually think that's what the rules say. They say, roughly speaking, that SLA are just like spells except where otherwise noted. They also say to treat them as Wizard/Sorc spells if they are on the Wizard/Sorc list, if not then Cleric, if not then Druid, etc. And it does say to treat them like such spells (which would indicate arcane/divine).

However, it doesn't say to treat them as Divine if the fluff for a monster has some sort of divine connection. So that is like the Aasimar thing above.

I'll grant this is different than how 3.5 handled it though.

For feats, I see no problem with this. There's nothing unbalancing here. For Prestige Classes? If there's nothing unbalancing, then the PrCs should just be adjusted so that they have more equal access for all players. There's no reason to restrict early access to characters who happen to qualify with an SLA. That said, a lot of the Pathfinder PrCs are pretty crappy (particularly the ones affected by this) so they could probably use some love anyway.

[LazarX]

Jiggy wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Players who are relying instead on interpretations of FAQs that don't directly address their corner build are quite literally asking for trouble. Just because FAQ answers issue A, doesn't mean it resolves issue B when B is something that kinda sounds like A, but isn't A.

Is there a particular part of the topic at hand that you feel fits this description, or was this more of a generalized statement?

This topic I'm pretty sure, was invoked by a recent string of threads put up by players who were using FAQ posts to justify PrC entries at levels not intended by RAI. In several of them players were using leaps of logic in order to make a connection between a FAQ which did not directly address the issue at hand to the claim they wished to make. There's a vocal group who wants unconditonal acceptance of character builds that are at best justified by extreme corner intpretations of either rules or FAQ threads that were invoked on subjects not related to what their desired rule interpreation was about.

[Drachasor]

LazarX wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Players who are relying instead on interpretations of FAQs that don't directly address their corner build are quite literally asking for trouble. Just because FAQ answers issue A, doesn't mean it resolves issue B when B is something that kinda sounds like A, but isn't A.

Is there a particular part of the topic at hand that you feel fits this description, or was this more of a generalized statement?

This topic I'm pretty sure, was invoked by a recent string of threads put up by players who were using FAQ posts to justify PrC entries at levels not intended by RAI. In several of them players were using leaps of logic in order to make a connection between a FAQ which did not directly address the issue at hand to the claim they wished to make. There's a vocal group who wants unconditonal acceptance of character builds that are at best justified by extreme corner intpretations of either rules or FAQ threads that were invoked on subjects not related to what their desired rule interpreation was about.

And yet, they refused to answer on the direct question saying they had already answered it. Answers we have? Spell-likes count as spells for pre-requisites with feats and spell-likes can be arcane (or divine, depending). Given this as true, how can they not satisfy PrC prerequisites, which are written in the same way as feats?

People are not even saying they like this, mind you. That's separate issue.

[LazarX]

Drachasor wrote:

And yet, they refused to answer on the direct question saying they had already answered it. Answers we have? Spell-likes count as spells for pre-requisites with feats and spell-likes can be arcane (or divine, depending). Given this as true, how can they not satisfy PrC prerequisites, which are written in the same way as feats?

People are not even saying they like this, mind you. That's separate issue.issue.

That's an argument of false equivalence. Feats are not PrC's. And it is answered in the rules if you look up ultimate Game Mastery in the class design section. A proper PrC should be entered no earlier than 5th or 6th level. Rule interpretaions used to cheese around that guideline should not be allowed. period.

Also again... check your calendar. We're in the busiest season of the year when it comes to product releases and major conventions. So I think the paizo staff can be excused if it doesn't put itself in service to every single cheesemonkey who's looking for a FAQ ruling to serve something that's clearly in violation of the spirit of already existing rules text.

[Jiggy]

LazarX wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Players who are relying instead on interpretations of FAQs that don't directly address their corner build are quite literally asking for trouble. Just because FAQ answers issue A, doesn't mean it resolves issue B when B is something that kinda sounds like A, but isn't A.

Is there a particular part of the topic at hand that you feel fits this description, or was this more of a generalized statement?

This topic I'm pretty sure, was invoked by a recent string of threads put up by players who were using FAQ posts to justify PrC entries at levels not intended by RAI. In several of them players were using leaps of logic in order to make a connection between a FAQ which did not directly address the issue at hand to the claim they wished to make. There's a vocal group who wants unconditonal acceptance of character builds that are at best justified by extreme corner intpretations of either rules or FAQ threads that were invoked on subjects not related to what their desired rule interpreation was about.

Hm, from your description, I think you might have missed a couple of key points (certainly understandable, with three FAQs, four active threads, and two pieces of designer commentary!).

First, one of the threads that first discussed the PrC issues erroneously linked in its OP a FAQ about SLAs counting for crafting requirements. The more relevant FAQ about SLAs counting as being able to cast spells for the purposes of prerequisites was later linked, but some folks who didn't have time to follow the whole thread didn't see that, and went on thinking that the entire PrC idea was based on a FAQ about item creation (which would be a logical leap indeed!). Is that one of the issues you're referring to?

Second, once the idea of SLA-based PrC entry based on the appropriate FAQs became more known/discussed, a rules thread appeared asking whether that effect of the FAQ really worked. The answer we got was the design team marking it as "Answered in the FAQ". Not "No response required," but "Answered in the FAQ". Most people I've seen who have been following along, including those opposed to the idea, have taken that as confirmation that the FAQ really does mean what it looks like it means. Perhaps you were unaware of that event?

Third, we have designer commentary stating that the Minor Magic rogue talent (which grants a single SLA) qualifies for the Arcane Strike feat (whose prereq is identical to that of the EK save for the phrase "3rd-level"), and in fact, they almost used that as the example in the FAQ. Many who are unaware of that commentary conclude that having a single SLA doesn't qualify for the plural "arcane spells" requirement - an issue which that commentary puts to rest. Could that be one of the issues you're thinking of?

If there's anything you feel is still not properly addressed, I'd love to hear it - it's always possible I've overlooked something. :)

[MechE_]

The OP has hit on many things that bother me about recent FAQs. On the brightside, those arguing for PF 2.0 are getting their wish... slowly.

Another point - As a DM, if you don't pay attention to the boards, you will have players showing up at your table trying to do things that just straight up were NOT the normal X months ago. This can make for uncomfortable situations where players expect something to be allowed "because it's in the rules" but leaves DMs feeling bombarded with something that is not any part of the rules they're familiar with...

I think changing something like this as a "oh yeah, by the way..." part of an FAQ is bad form.

[bugleyman]

Jiggy wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

SLAs counting as spells is nowhere in the CRB.

CRB wrote:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.

<lists some exceptions>
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

bugleyman wrote:

One counting as the other isn't even implied.

CRB wrote:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.

<lists some exceptions>
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

bugleyman wrote:

Pretty obvious, really.

That is all about how they function, not whether they satisfy prereqs. Nice try, though.

How about this: Can you find, in any Paizo product, a single instance of an NPC that uses a spell-like ability to qualify for a PRC? Because I can provide many examples which do not. Ditto 3.5. If so, I'll concede that it is not a change. But even then, it is still unclear -- dare I say sloppy -- design.

[Jiggy]

bugleyman wrote:

How about this -- can you find, in any Paizo product, a single instance of an NPC that uses a spell-like ability to qualify for a PRC? Because I can provide many examples where they do not.

How about this -- can you find, in any Paizo product, a single instance of an NPC that uses a +5 holy flaming burst dagger? Because I can provide many examples where they do not.

[bugleyman]

Jiggy wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

How about this -- can you find, in any Paizo product, a single instance of an NPC that uses a spell-like ability to qualify for a PRC? Because I can provide many examples where they do not.

How about this -- can you find, in any Paizo product, a single instance of an NPC that uses a +5 holy flaming burst dagger? Because I can provide many examples where they do not.

Do you actually believe that to be a reasonable analogy, or are you just being difficult on purpose?

[Avh]

Between the mess of the book, the mess of the errata and the mess of the FAQ, there is not a single rule in Pathfinder that is crystal clear.

I don't recall of ANY particular rule that doesn't need at least 2 chapters to be answered. And when its chapters you need, you're lucky, because sometimes, you need 2 or more books, the last errata from each, and the FAQ, that changes the rules on a whimp.

Hell, what I said in those messageboards a few weeks/months ago was true back then, and much more now : try to make your game understandable by someone normal. The first step is to reorganize your whole books, to make them much more readable.

[Jiggy]

LazarX wrote:

clearly in violation of the spirit of already existing rules text.

You might be interested to know that we also have designer commentary suggesting that current intent differs from inherited 3.5 text, implying that the ramifications of the recent FAQs are deliberate.

[bugleyman]

...and since I know it's coming: No, I don't need to be a game developer to reasonably have an opinion about the quality of design, and more than I have to be a Hollywood director to know that Cool as Ice was a terrible movie.

[bugleyman]

Jiggy wrote:

You might be interested to know that we also have designer commentary suggesting that current intent differs from inherited 3.5 text, implying that the ramifications of the recent FAQs are deliberate.

...and implying that the text should have been changed to reflect the new intent in the first place. Unless of course it was always the wotc text that was unclear.

Really, we can do this all day. You think Paizo designers are infallible, we get it.

[ciretose]

Why would anyone be confused or think this is a change.

Which is admittedly a bit of a cheap shot.

But this isn't a simple question that has been clearly answered, and anyone saying otherwise is being a bit ridiculous.

This is a change (which is fine) and the full extent of how all of this interacts has not yet been clearly laid out.

To quote

"I whole agree that the rules could use a lot of clarification.."

So everyone get off your high horse and discuss the issue rather than acting like the other side is just ignorant...

[Drachasor]

LazarX wrote:

That's an argument of false equivalence. Feats are not PrC's. And it is answered in the rules if you look up ultimate Game Mastery in the class design section. A proper PrC should be entered no earlier than 5th or 6th level. Rule interpretaions used to cheese around that guideline should not be allowed. period.

Also again... check your calendar. We're in the busiest season of the year when it comes to product releases and major conventions. So I think the paizo staff can be excused if it doesn't put itself in service to every single cheesemonkey who's looking for a FAQ ruling to serve something that's clearly in violation of the spirit of already existing rules text.

So if they made a PrC that had a Prerequisite of 2 ranks in Diplomacy or BAB +2, you'd just ignore that?

Or a better example would be monsters that don't follow the Monster Creation Guidelines. Guess what? Not everything follows their guidelines, because they are...guidelines. So you can't really use an argument like that.

And they've indicated this interpretation is correct as well. Which is really weird (as I am pretty sure it isn't RAI).

Anyhow, there's a huuuuuge difference between saying something is Rules As Written, and saying something shouldn't be that way. We're talking about what the Rules ARE. Protesting that they shouldn't be that way is really missing the point. Especially if PFS has to follow it and they've seemingly clarified that what you call cheese, they call a correct use of the rules.

I'm not saying a good DM shouldn't houserule this away (though a good DM should perhaps try to fix the PrCs in Pathfinder too, but that's a LOT of work). What I am saying is the fact you have to ignore some of the FAQs and that others just explicitly violate RAW is a problem with them. It makes using the FAQs a frustrating endeavor.

[Foxdie13]

MechE_ wrote:

The OP has hit on many things that bother me about recent FAQs. On the brightside, those arguing for PF 2.0 are getting their wish... slowly.

Another point - As a DM, if you don't pay attention to the boards, you will have players showing up at your table trying to do things that just straight up were NOT the normal X months ago. This can make for uncomfortable situations where players expect something to be allowed "because it's in the rules" but leaves DMs feeling bombarded with something that is not any part of the rules they're familiar with...

I think changing something like this as a "oh yeah, by the way..." part of an FAQ is bad form.

Disclaimer: this following statement is only regarding homebrew and NOTHING to do with PFS.

What kind of DM is getting this kind of surprise at a game? I know the general build of all my pc, the players even ask me for advices and before the game, I ask a copy of their sheet to double check everything is legit + be sure to know what they can do to ensure maximum fun. Not that im a good DM but if the DM is getting a surprise the day of the game, there is another problem.

Am I wrong?

[Jiggy]

ciretose wrote:

Why would anyone be confused or think this is a change.

Which is admittedly a bit of a cheap shot.

Especially considering he explicitly retracted that statement while discussing some of the recent FAQs.

Yes, citing statements whose owners have already retracted them is indeed a "cheap shot", as you put it.

[Weslocke]

What I DO see in the FAQ's is several questions and answers about SLA's and FEATS.

What I DO NOT see in the FAQ's is ANY answers about SLA's being used to qualify for a Prestige Class.

"Answered in FAQ" can just as easily mean "NO" in this case as "YES".

In my opinion a lot of people have really jumped the gun on their interpretation of this "Answered in FAQ" response.

Ask yourself this. If this is the "way it has been all along" then why is there NOT ONE SINGLE NPC in NPC CODEX built to these standards?

The Gnomish Arcane Archer on pg 203 could have used it, but did not.

The Gnomish Eldritch Knight on pg 221 could have used it, but did not.

So if this is the way "it has always been" then why did these builds not take advantage of it?

[wraithstrike]

Tempestorm wrote:

For home games the FAQ's, message boards, et al. are not needed. Period.

We don't worry about how things are FAQ'ed or not. We have a question we open our books and make a decision by what is written there and how we interput it... with our Minds! We don't go scouring the messageboards and FAQ's to se how it "supposed" to be done. I paid good money for my books, I intend to utilize them (and that doesn't mean printing out 100 pages of FAQ sheets to stuff in the pages).

For Society games, on the other hand, it is necessary to keep up on what is Legal for Society play. But even then I doubt many people scour every FAQ to ensure that their Society games are being ran "just right".

/shrug

I could be wrong though.

They are need if we want to know the intent of the rules, and wish to play that way. As for printing out FAQ's I have yet to do that.

[Xaratherus]

bugleyman wrote:

That is all about how they function, not whether they satisfy prereqs. Nice try, though.

Your specific question was this: "SLAs counting as spells is nowhere in the CRB." Part of the context, given the thread, was that recent FAQs have changed core mechanics of the game; in this case, the fact is that the core rules always have implied that spell-like abilities share some\many similarities with spells.

And Jiggy offered up several quotes that answer that exact question.

Then you moved the goalposts to include the topic of SLAs qualifying for prerequisites (goalposts moved because your original question didn't mention that, or even imply it).

I would guess that Jiggy assumed you were aware of the FAQs that answer that question, given that the impetus for this thread (or one of them - probably the primary one) was about those very FAQs.

[Jiggy]

Weslocke wrote:

If this is the "way it has been all along"

.....
So if this is the way "it has always been" then why did these builds not take advantage of it?

Can you point me to anyone who thinks this? Because what I'm seeing is that Paizo inherited 3.5 assumptions, then later "found rules text" (as Sean K Reynolds put it) that allowed them to go their preferred direction instead without having to issue errata, and they went with it.

No one (that I'm aware of) is denying that the intent used to be that SLAs didn't qualify you for things. What people are saying is that intent has changed, and that these new FAQs (and designer commentary to go with them) reflect that change of intent.

Yeah, explicit errata to rules documents would have been simpler for the consumers; I'm guessing, though, that it was easier for Paizo to do FAQs for one reason or another.

[bugleyman]

ciretose wrote:

Why would anyone be confused or think this is a change.

Which is admittedly a bit of a cheap shot.

No, it isn't a cheap shot. It's a clear indication that this is a change -- or that Paizo employees are fallible, heaven forbid.

Let's put all our cards on the table, shall we? The Core Rulebook is a mess. It was rushed, and frankly the designers didn't have the experience that those who built 3.0 (or even 3.5) did. That doesn't mean the designers are bad people, or that they did a bad job. It does mean that treating the Core Rulebook like the freakin' US Constitution is silly.

Four years in, changes like the SLA/spell equivalency should be on the bin list for a new edition. They do not belong in the FAQ.

[wraithstrike]

Many times FAQ's answer questions that may not have come up at the time the rule was written. Then the devs have to say how they would have made the ruling if the question had come up. AM Barbarian and his lance are an example of that.

[Xaratherus]

bugleyman wrote:

Four years in, big changes like the SLA/spell equivalency should be on the bin list for a new edition. They do not belong in the FAQ.

You're poking at people for implying (and I would disagree that he was implying that at all, really) infallibility, then you present a statement like this, which is purely opinion, but which you are voicing as fact?

:P

[bugleyman]

Jiggy wrote:

Weslocke wrote:

If this is the "way it has been all along"

.....
So if this is the way "it has always been" then why did these builds not take advantage of it?

Can you point me to anyone who thinks this?

If "this" is "this is the way it has been all along," then you appear to. Otherwise, it is a change, which you've been arguing against.

[LazarX]

Drachasor wrote:

So if they made a PrC that had a Prerequisite of 2 ranks in Diplomacy or BAB +2, you'd just ignore that?

That's a cheap shot argument. If that was a pre-req of a PrC you'd also find another such as a BAB requirement or a casting requirement that would still shoot the level entry up to 5th or 6th level.

I extremely doubt that we'll see a PrC whose entry requirements of are ONLY 2 ranks of a skill. That's just as likely as the alignment required for Paladin being changed to Chaotic Good only.

[bugleyman]

Xaratherus wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Four years in, big changes like the SLA/spell equivalency should be on the bin list for a new edition. They do not belong in the FAQ.

You're poking at people for implying (and I would disagree that he was implying that at all, really) infallibility, then you present a statement like this, which is purely opinion, but which you are voicing as fact?

:P

I'm "voicing it as fact" (whatever that means) only insofar as I wrote it as a statement.

It's simple guys. Either this is a change, which I'm arguing, or it isn't, in which case every NPC ever built by Paizo has been deliberately un-optimized, and the matter is so confusing SKR got it wrong.

There really isn't a third option.

[ciretose]

Jiggy wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Why would anyone be confused or think this is a change.

Which is admittedly a bit of a cheap shot.

Especially considering he explicitly retracted that statement while discussing some of the recent FAQs.

Yes, citing statements whose owners have already retracted them is indeed a "cheap shot", as you put it.

And so is saying the issue is obvious and clear.

Which was the point you edited out.

Until 5/6/13 the rule was one way, now it is another. Until 5/6/13 my group was doing it "wrong", now we are doing it "right".

But until the Devs come into one of these threads and explain how they view the interaction with prestige classes, stop acting like this is obvious and clear and always has been.

It wasn't. At least one Dev had a different understanding of the rule until about two months ago, and was confident enough about it to post and answer in a rules thread.

The fact is the Devs haven't specifically weighed in. Probably because they want to think about it first, since it was already reversed once.

Which is awesome. That is how they should do it. Much like the monk "Clarification" that was reversed, this is something that has broad implications that need to be considered.

But you are talking down to people as if this is obvious and clear.

And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia...

How about "I think it is this way based on my reading."

How about that?

[Jiggy]

Xaratherus wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

That is all about how they function, not whether they satisfy prereqs. Nice try, though.

Your specific question was this: "SLAs counting as spells is nowhere in the CRB." Part of the context, given the thread, was that recent FAQs have changed core mechanics of the game; in this case, the fact is that the core rules always have implied that spell-like abilities share some\many similarities with spells.

And Jiggy offered up several quotes that answer that exact question.

Then you moved the goalposts to include the topic of SLAs qualifying for prerequisites (goalposts moved because your original question didn't mention that, or even imply it).

I would guess that Jiggy assumed you were aware of the FAQs that answer that question, given that the impetus for this thread (or one of them - probably the primary one) was about those very FAQs.

I very well could have misinterpreted his earlier post as being more broad than it was intended and thereby started a chain reaction of misunderstandings. :/

[Xaratherus]

bugleyman wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Four years in, big changes like the SLA/spell equivalency should be on the bin list for a new edition. They do not belong in the FAQ.

You're poking at people for implying (and I would disagree that he was implying that at all, really) infallibility, then you present a statement like this, which is purely opinion, but which you are voicing as fact?

:P

I'm "voicing it as fact" (whatever that means) only insofar as I wrote it as a statement.

It's simple guys. Either this is a change, which I'm arguing, or it isn't, in which case it has been unclear for years. There is no third option.

I'm not even talking about the change. I'm talking about your statement that clarifications\errata like this don't belong in an FAQ.

Personally? Give me everything in an FAQ\errata; I hate edition reprints for rules changes. If they want to remove a class, let 'em do it in an FAQ; don't print a book unless you're giving new options, not rules changes. I don't want to have to pay $45 for a new book that doesn't include new content, when I can get free errata\FAQs that I can print.

[Cheapy]

Do note that the FAQ also says that SLAs are not spells and that things that affecting spellcasting only affect actual spellcasting. But this is at odds with the most recent clarifications.

This is all the fault of that line in the CRB saying SLAs can be used to make magic items. I still think we should just get rid of that line and rescind all this.

[Jiggy]

ciretose wrote:

But you are talking down to people as if this is obvious and clear.

I never said it was obvious (I even pointed out how easy it would be to not have all the information due to it being spread across four threads, three FAQs and two designer comments).

I do think it's reasonably clear once you sort through all that scattered info, but that's a task I don't expect everyone to undertake.

[wraithstrike]

If infallible means they are not supposed to ever change they minds then I guess they are not infallible, but when a rule can be read in more than one way I see no issue with using an FAQ to handle it. Doing so saves space in the book for errata that is needed, even if it is annoying at time. Now with that aside there have been changes due to the FAQ. SKR's statements are examples of that.

Bugly the devs were with WoTC for 3.5. I would not say they are lacking experience, and 3.5 had many questions that were never answered.

PS:Personally I wont be allowing SLA's to gain entry into a PrC no matter what the official ruling is. I know I wont have choice if I ever GM for PFS, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

[Xaratherus]

wraithstrike wrote:

If infallible means they are not supposed to ever change they minds then I guess they are not infallible, but when a rule can be read in more than one way I see no issue with using an FAQ to handle it. Doing so saves space in the book for errata that is needed, even if it is annoying at time. Now with that aside there have been changes due to the FAQ. SKR's statements are examples of that.

Bugly the devs were with WoTC for 3.5. I would not say they are lacking experience, and 3.5 had many questions that were never answered.

PS:Personally I wont be allowing SLA's to gain entry into a PrC no matter what the official ruling is. I know I wont have choice if I ever GM for PFS, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

Assuming that PFS doesn't put a kibosh on the change for moderated tables, which is a distinct possibility.

[wraithstrike]

Drachasor wrote:

LazarX wrote:

That's an argument of false equivalence. Feats are not PrC's. And it is answered in the rules if you look up ultimate Game Mastery in the class design section. A proper PrC should be entered no earlier than 5th or 6th level. Rule interpretaions used to cheese around that guideline should not be allowed. period.

Also again... check your calendar. We're in the busiest season of the year when it comes to product releases and major conventions. So I think the paizo staff can be excused if it doesn't put itself in service to every single cheesemonkey who's looking for a FAQ ruling to serve something that's clearly in violation of the spirit of already existing rules text.

So if they made a PrC that had a Prerequisite of 2 ranks in Diplomacy or BAB +2, you'd just ignore that?

Or a better example would be monsters that don't follow the Monster Creation Guidelines. Guess what? Not everything follows their guidelines, because they are...guidelines. So you can't really use an argument like that.

And they've indicated this interpretation is correct as well. Which is really weird (as I am pretty sure it isn't RAI).

Anyhow, there's a huuuuuge difference between saying something is Rules As Written, and saying something shouldn't be that way. We're talking about what the Rules ARE. Protesting that they shouldn't be that way is really missing the point. Especially if PFS has to follow it and they've seemingly clarified that what you call cheese, they call a correct use of the rules.

I'm not saying a good DM shouldn't houserule this away (though a good DM should perhaps try to fix the PrCs in Pathfinder too, but that's a LOT of work). What I am saying is the fact you have to ignore some of the FAQs and that others just explicitly violate RAW is a problem with them. It makes using the FAQs a frustrating endeavor.

The issue here is more SLA's and spells, then it is with the FAQ system. Sometime SLA's which are not spells, count as spells, and sometimes they don't. We may just need an SLA blog to give us a run down on when they do and do not qualify. It was not until the summoner class was created that we discovered augment summoning counted for SLA's that summon creatures.

[bugleyman]

Xaratherus wrote:

. I don't want to have to pay $45 for a new book that doesn't include new content, when I can get free errata\FAQs that I can print.

Perhaps that is the heart of the apparent animosity in this thread, then. I have purchased three CRBs -- a 1st, a 3rd, and a 5th printing -- and recently won a 6th printing at Paizo con. If I hadn't, I would have probably bought one. I just want my core book to be accurate, so the idea that (what I consider to be) major stuff exists only in the FAQ is pretty disconcerting.

If Paizo decided to print a Pathfinder 2E tomorrow, I'd be delighted. As long as it's an improvement, I couldn't care less about the $50.

[thejeff]

bugleyman wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Four years in, big changes like the SLA/spell equivalency should be on the bin list for a new edition. They do not belong in the FAQ.

You're poking at people for implying (and I would disagree that he was implying that at all, really) infallibility, then you present a statement like this, which is purely opinion, but which you are voicing as fact?

:P

I'm "voicing it as fact" (whatever that means) only insofar as I wrote it as a statement.

It's simple guys. Either this is a change, which I'm arguing, or it isn't, in which case every NPC ever built by Paizo has been deliberately un-optimized, and the matter is so confusing SKR got it wrong.

There really isn't a third option.

I think the last part is the third option: It's so confusing SKR and everyone else got it wrong. The NPCs weren't deliberately unoptimized, the developers hadn't realized the rules allowed this.

There's a difference between the sections of rules they developed themselves (or drastically changed) and those they inherited from 3.5. In the first case, they can speak directly to intent. In the second they can speak authoritatively, but they're doing so by the same type of analysis we do: Here's the text of the rule - what does it mean?

[Joe M.]

Cheapy wrote:

Do note that the FAQ also says that SLAs are not spells and that things that affecting spellcasting only affect actual spellcasting. But this is at odds with the most recent clarifications.

This is all the fault of that line in the CRB saying SLAs can be used to make magic items. I still think we should just get rid of that line and rescind all this.

Yeah, it's an odd result of the change that the old understanding of SLAs is still lingering in the older FAQs (here and here and here). A rewrite of all the SLA FAQs either one way or the other (maybe an FAQ blog post, if they ever have time for it) would be great. Not holding my breath, though.

ciretose wrote:

Why would anyone be confused or think this is a change.

Which is admittedly a bit of a cheap shot.

But this isn't a simple question that has been clearly answered, and anyone saying otherwise is being a bit ridiculous.

This is a change (which is fine) and the full extent of how all of this interacts has not yet been clearly laid out.

To quote

"I whole agree that the rules could use a lot of clarification.."

So everyone get off your high horse and discuss the issue rather than acting like the other side is just ignorant...

Thanks for the links, Ciretose! Helps fill out the story of the change.