|
The Archmage path ability Divine Knowledge has one of the flaws that most irk me about pathfinder. Lack of foresight.
Divine Knowledge (Ex): You can use arcane power to
cast a small number of divine spells. Choose three 1stlevel
spells from the cleric spell list or three 1st-level
spells from the druid spell list. You can add those spells
to your spellbook (if you’re a magus or wizard) or familiar
(if you’re a witch) for free and can cast those spells as if
they were arcane spells on your class list. You can select
this ability up to three times. Each time you select it,
you choose three more spells from the same class’s spell
list (cleric or druid), and the highest spell level you can
select from increases by 1 (up to 2nd level the second time
and up to 3rd level the third time). You must be a magus,
witch, or wizard to select this ability.
Emphasis mine.
This line should read "You must be a prepared arcane caster to select this ability."
Why does this matter? While today this is an exhaustive list of prepared arcane casters, that will change. Specifically, I am willing to bet it changes almost exactly one year from now.
Somebody building a character with one of the shiny new classes we have been promised will realize their prepared caster cannot take this ability, due to his class not existing at the time the ability was written.
The Hierophant ability, Arcane Knowledge, has the same problem, and will lead to the same issues.
Except it doesn't really matter. You can change it for your game as you see cit. Though I agree it should be worded differently.
Yes, they should probably errata it. On the other hand, this is one of those few cases where the intent is obvious.
|
This sort of lack of forward planning does annoy me. There are similar issues with the oracle - like Spiritual Weapon referring to your Wisdom bonus, technically preventing oracles from using Cha (still not errata'd IIRC).
My problem is that it's an easy problem to avoid in most cases. If you mean for the ability to apply to anything with a general property (prepared arcane spellcaster) then name that property rather than giving a list of classes with that property, since that list may not always be exhaustive.
|
@Weirdo
Oracle: Can I use my Charisma modifier for cleric spells and effects that use Wisdom, such as spiritual weapon?As written, those effects say "Wisdom" (because they were written before the idea of the oracle class as a Charisma-based caster), so an oracle has to use her Wisdom modifier.
However, it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow an oracle to use her Charisma modifier (or bonus) for cleric spells that refer to the caster's Wisdom modifier (or bonus).—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/09/13
The reply is "No, you can't." You can houserule isn't the same thing of "We will change what the spell say."
@Artanthos
What shiny new classes we were promised?
The Developers posts I have seen is that there are enough base classes and that they don't want to add more of them.
|
|
@Weirdo
The reply is "No, you can't." You can houserule isn't the same thing of "We will change what the spell say."
Oracle: Can I use my Charisma modifier for cleric spells and effects that use Wisdom, such as spiritual weapon?As written, those effects say "Wisdom" (because they were written before the idea of the oracle class as a Charisma-based caster), so an oracle has to use her Wisdom modifier.
However, it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow an oracle to use her Charisma modifier (or bonus) for cleric spells that refer to the caster's Wisdom modifier (or bonus).—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/09/13
Yes, exactly. It hasn't been errata'd and isn't going to be errata'd despite the fact that it almost certainly would have allowed an oracle to use Cha had oracles existed when the spell had been written. The fact that the FAQ amounts to "That's what the rules say, change it if you want to" and doesn't actually justify not allowing Cha by RAW suggests that it's an oversight, not a design decision. And I can see why it might not be worth it to errata it, especially if it messes with the page numbering. So it looks like the devs have decided to live with the oversight. But they wouldn't have to live with it (and PFS players wouldn't have to live with it) if they'd thought a little farther ahead.
Spells often have benefits dependent on the casting stat. Wisdom is the specific example of the casting stat that applied at the time the spell was written, but if the spell was intended to use the casting stat rather than specifically Wisdom, it should have used the appropriate term.
|
|
It point is the "if" part.
Let's look somewhat similar spells:
Spiritual Ally, that is a APG spell, an do published together with the oracle, say:
"The spiritual ally uses your base attack bonus (gaining extra attacks if your base attack bonus is high enough) plus your Wisdom bonus when it makes a melee attack."
Pilfering Hand, UC, instead has different rules for the 3 kinds of spellcasters when you use the Abrupt Maneuver version:
"Use your caster level as your Combat Maneuver Bonus, adding your Charisma modifier (bard, oracle, sorcerer), Intelligence modifier (magus, wizard), or Wisdom modifier (cleric) in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier."
but make no concession for casters when using the Careful Maneuver: version:
"You attempt a Disable Device check or a Sleight of Hand check to pick-pocket a target within range."
With the Careful Maneuver: version you use the normal value of your skill.
So what we get?
The two cleric/oracle spells have no variations, they always use wisdom.
The cleric/oracle/sorcerer/wizard spell use variable characteristic but only for one of the uses.
I am not so convinced it is a oversight. It seem more a decision not shared by the 100% of the developers.
|
|
Spiritual Ally is interesting, though I'm not convinced it's not just copied over from Spiritual Weapon with the Wisdom oversight preserved (it's obviously an upgrade from Weapon and the spell description is similar in structure and wording).
Pilfering Hand is not analogous since the Careful Maneuver version uses a skill check rather than using an ability modifier that corresponds to the casting stat of one of the spell's users - if Careful Maneuver were to allow a Disable Device check modified by your Intelligence rather than your Dexterity, I would consider that evidence that this is not an oversight.
I also feel like if it wasn't an oversight, the FAQ should at least have said "This is intentional" rather than just "This is RAW."
A simple solution to things like the Oracle/Wisdom thing would have been to say that it uses your 'primary casting stat modifier'.