FAQ Appeal


Advice


Is there any sort of appeal process for FAQ rulings? Do you just post a similar question and hope enough people tag it as a FAQ request?

Specifically, Paizo ruled that Oracles use wisdom when casting spells from sources older than they are. This makes no sense to me (and most others that I've spoken with).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you know the reason why they can't do that?


Sorry, but I'm running low on caffeine.

Whe reason who can't do that?


Oh wow, that wasn't clear.

I meant, do you know why the design team ruled that way?


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:

Is there any sort of appeal process for FAQ rulings? Do you just post a similar question and hope enough people tag it as a FAQ request?

Specifically, Paizo ruled that Oracles use wisdom when casting spells from sources older than they are. This makes no sense to me (and most others that I've spoken with).

In fact, paizo faq state that it makes perfectly reasonable hr those spells to allow the Cha instead of Wis.

Dark Archive

Sadly it doesn't work that way.

I assume they are talking about the silly rulings like Spiritual Weapon, which specifically state that Wisdom is used (and not a casting stat). This makes Spirtual Weapon effectively terrible as a spell for most oracles.

Que sera... oracles are really, really good; I don't think having the odd spell not work perfectly for them is a bad thing :).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In theory, FAQs don't change the rules, they explain them. You aren't asking for an appeal of the FAQ, you're asking for a rule change, albeit one that the developers might agree with you on the merits. It isn't an error; it is an artifact resulting in how the rules came about.

The FAQ in question says that when the rules state use Wisdom, they mean Wisdom, even for classes for which Wisdom isn't the primary casting stat. It also says, in the event that a GM needs such permission, that it is a reasonable house rule to change it. Your appeal is to your GM.

If you're playing in PFS, the policy is to not make such house rules. As a player in such an environment, you have the rule and make choices appropriately. There are spell selections that don't rely on a house rule to work as you desire. If you were caught unaware, the campaign adopted the retrain system to give you the ability to change the spell to another.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thalin wrote:
I assume they are talking about the silly rulings like Spiritual Weapon, which specifically state that Wisdom is used (and not a casting stat). This makes Spirtual Weapon effectively terrible as a spell for most oracles.

How is it a silly ruling when the function of the FAQ is not to make changes to the rules, but to clarify them? Should the rule be changed from Wisdom to casting stat? Yes..if the developers thought otherwise they would have just responded to the FAQ with No Reply Needed. But the FAQ isn't the vehicle for such changes. Errata is the vehicle. In this case, the rule is so embedded in the text of multiple spells that errata would be an extensive undertaking.

Playing groups generally have the ability to make the change; if they choose not to, that's on them, not the developers. PFS meets different needs, and those are deemed to take precedence over a finesse of the rules.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For me this exchange would go something like this...

Me: Hey Joe(DM), you know the spirtual weapon sepll?
Joe: Yeah, what about it?
Me: Well, the spell states that you use your wisdom for attack rolls... which makes sense as it used to be a Cleric only spell. But my Oracle can cast it and he uses Charisma as his casting stat... mind if I use Charisma for my attack rolls?
Joe: Sounds reasonable, go for it.
Me: Cool, thanks.

Or he could say:
Joe: I hear you, but lets keep the attack based on Wisdom as the spell intended. Oracles don't have to be good at every spell a Cleric can cast.
Me: Ok, just won't take that spell... I'll take (insert other spell here) instead.
Joe: Ok, sounds good.

Why isn't it this simple for other people?

/shrug


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
Is there any sort of appeal process for FAQ rulings?

No. There is no formal appeals process.

The Devs can change a FAQ they later change their minds about, but that is their perogative. I strongly suggest against badgering the Devs to make a change. That would be improper form.

If I were to go about it, I think I'd write a petition post and have people "sign" the post by hitting FAQ. That may violate some of the posting rules, I don't know, but it seems like an organized, "peaceful", and hopefully a non-badgering method.

Example petition:

**************************************************************

PETITION: Spiritual Weapon FAQ Change

Please consider changing the Spiritual Weapon FAQ listed below to allow casters to use their appropriate spell casting modifiers. The people who have hit the FAQ button have signed this petition for you to consider.

This particular FAQ is being used as precedence incorrectly in other spells (Chain of Perdition for any caster that is not a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric; Telekinesis for Haunted Oracles; etc.) and causing confusion needlessly.

FROM:

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).

TO (example wording only):

Oracle: Can I use my Charisma modifier for cleric spells and effects that use Wisdom, such as Spiritual Weapon?

Yes. A spellcaster can use his/her normal spellcasting ability modifier when casting spells that refer to the caster's spellcasting stat bonus.


Tempestorm wrote:

For me this exchange would go something like this...

Me: Hey Joe(DM), you know the spirtual weapon sepll?
Joe: Yeah, what about it?
Me: Well, the spell states that you use your wisdom for attack rolls... which makes sense as it used to be a Cleric only spell. But my Oracle can cast it and he uses Charisma as his casting stat... mind if I use Charisma for my attack rolls?
Joe: Sounds reasonable, go for it.
Me: Cool, thanks.

Or he could say:
Joe: I hear you, but lets keep the attack based on Wisdom as the spell intended. Oracles don't have to be good at every spell a Cleric can cast.
Me: Ok, just won't take that spell... I'll take (insert other spell here) instead.
Joe: Ok, sounds good.

Why isn't it this simple for other people?

/shrug

Because


I play primarily in the PFS. RAW is the only rule possible there, so asking my GM to housefule something that makes sense isn't really an option.

Were it a home game, tempestorm, I'd be all over a sit down with my GM. As it stands, I have about a dozen of them.

Thanks to everyone for the quick responses, I guess it's just a matter of hoping the language in PF2.0 (if that ever happens) is a bit better than the current iteration. Just the use of a "casting stat" entry in the classes and using that language in the various spells would make a world of difference.

"Oracle is already a good class. Just accept that sometimes you suck at a divine thing" doesn't really seem like the right answer.

If I want to play a character that's not using a generic build, I don't think I should be punished because there are people out there that min-max the heck out of their characters. When I ask a question about a concept and the response is "LOL, just roll a <insert OPed different build here>" usually followed by some kind of name calling because I don't just troll the CharOp boards, I feel like the issue isn't on my end.


I understand your frustaration, but at least for Spiritual Weapon it's just one spell (though there may be othes). It's about like saying that the spell simply isn't on your list of spells you can cast, and that just doesn't seem like that big a deal.

So the version of Spiritual Weapon you have isn't very good, but you have tons of other spells that are. Unless your focus was to build an Oracle that excelled at casting Spiritual Weapon I don't think there was much lost here.


Howie23 wrote:
In theory,

In theory...

Silver Crusade

Skaldi the Tallest wrote:

I play primarily in the PFS. RAW is the only rule possible there, so asking my GM to housefule something that makes sense isn't really an option.

Were it a home game, tempestorm, I'd be all over a sit down with my GM. As it stands, I have about a dozen of them.

more stuff...

Yes, for Society Play you have a valid point. Though I do play Society it is, by no means, my primary gaming. So, in so far as Society goes you are stuck with the FAQ. It doesn't effect many spells though does it?

I can't think of another one off the top of my head that would be an issue... though there very well may be.


It was really poor form to mention a stat by name in any case. PF Core is supposed to be backwards compatible and I'm pretty sure there's ways to shift casting stats in 3.5.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Rory wrote:
If I were to go about it, I think I'd write a petition post and have people "sign" the post by hitting FAQ. That may violate some of the posting rules, I don't know, but it seems like an organized, "peaceful", and hopefully a non-badgering method.

FYI, that's not what tho FAQ is for, and we'd mark the thread "no response needed," as we'd rather not have "you should change the rule to *this*" threads cluttering up the queue of FAQs that need answering.


Rory wrote:


If I were to go about it, I think I'd write a petition post and have people "sign" the post by hitting FAQ. That may violate some of the posting rules, I don't know, but it seems like an organized, "peaceful", and hopefully a non-badgering method.

Given a recent frowning on the use of the word "petition" in a post, I'd avoid using that, or any form of attempting to organize people in some kind of mass-posting to say "We want this changed! Raaarrrgh!". Basically, it can look like a group of players attempting to strong-arm Paizo into doing something they don't want to do, especially if they've already made a decision to the contrary.

Far better to just start a post somewhere saying you don't like the ruling, and let people agree/disagree as they see fit, and if Paizo want to make the change they will (or if not, they will not) and, well, it looks like that's already being done with this thread :)


The best bet at this point is asking PFS management to institute a "PFS House Rule" which follows what the FAQ says is a "reasonable idea but not RAW". PFS follows what are essentially house-rules in other areas, so it's not unreasonable they might do similarly here. I believe that Paizo has written other FAQs in a similar way, so that it is easier for PFS to just approve the "reasonable idea but not RAW" house-rule (as well as for non-PFS home games). Since there's several of such FAQs out there, they might just want to officially approve all of them at once.


Tempestorm wrote:
I can't think of another one off the top of my head that would be an issue... though there very well may be.

Spiritual Weapon

Spiritual Ally
Chain of Perdition
Telekinesis
etc.

Pilfering Hand is an example of a spell that addresses the other casting classes. However, it too will cause issues as soon as the Advance Class Guide hits the market, unless they fix it now.

I'm almost certain that they can address it for the new classes in the new book, but I doubt that will fix it for the APG and UM classes.

Another issue along these lines is what stat a Rogue uses for Chain of Perdition if they UMD a scroll? or uses a wand of Toppling Magic Missile?

I think that would take a second FAQ to answer (although it isn't a "frequent" question for certain).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Rory wrote:
If I were to go about it, I think I'd write a petition post and have people "sign" the post by hitting FAQ. That may violate some of the posting rules, I don't know, but it seems like an organized, "peaceful", and hopefully a non-badgering method.
FYI, that's not what tho FAQ is for, and we'd mark the thread "no response needed," as we'd rather not have "you should change the rule to *this*" threads cluttering up the queue of FAQs that need answering.

In that case there should probably be a separate mechanism for drawing errata requests to your attention.

On the subject of appealing FAQs, I've seen a number of "no response needed" responses where there was enough ambiguity to form arguments. I perceive those nonresponses as being to things the devs feel are obvious, but that the players clearly don't find obvious or there would be no disagreement. An appeal mechanism would be a way to tell you that, "no, there really are a nontrivial number of people confused by this issue and it needs an answer."


Claxon wrote:
It's about like saying that the spell simply isn't on your list of spells you can cast, and that just doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Therein lies the problem.

It IS on the list of spells he can cast. It's just effectively unusable by reason of the spell not existing before the class you're playing did.

I don't think it's quite an errata to change things to reflect the specific class when two classes share the same spell list.

I don't see Wizards/Sorcerers running into this issue, after all, and we know pretty solidly that this is not an intended, uh, "feature"(?) of Spiritual Weapon by the way the FAQ says "Hey yeah that would make an excellent houserule".

It's more along the lines of clarifying the spell so that it works with newly released classes. Kind of like old spells that were updated in new printings to contain references to newer classes like the Magus. Pretty sure there are a few of those.

It seems more like it straddles the thin line between clarification and change and I think it lies far enough on the clarify side that nobody would complain if it was changed.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Atarlost wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Rory wrote:
If I were to go about it, I think I'd write a petition post and have people "sign" the post by hitting FAQ. That may violate some of the posting rules, I don't know, but it seems like an organized, "peaceful", and hopefully a non-badgering method.
FYI, that's not what tho FAQ is for, and we'd mark the thread "no response needed," as we'd rather not have "you should change the rule to *this*" threads cluttering up the queue of FAQs that need answering.
In that case there should probably be a separate mechanism for drawing errata requests to your attention.

We see threads discussing possible errata; they don't need to be flagged for that.

Atarlost wrote:
On the subject of appealing FAQs, I've seen a number of "no response needed" responses where there was enough ambiguity to form arguments. I perceive those nonresponses as being to things the devs feel are obvious, but that the players clearly don't find obvious or there would be no disagreement.

Many of those stem from an earlier iteration of the FAQ code where we didn't have the option of saying "question unclear," so we used the "no response needed" response to clear it from the queue so it could be restated more clearly.

Also, there are different levels of "obvious to the players." Sometimes, the answer is so face-slappingly obvious that we don't make a FAQ about it. Other times, the "obvious" answer could do with more explanation, so we do a FAQ about it. It depends on the question, really. That's why the design team has it as an option.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Rynjin wrote:
It's more along the lines of clarifying the spell so that it works with newly released classes. Kind of like old spells that were updated in new printings to contain references to newer classes like the Magus. Pretty sure there are a few of those.

I would be very, very surprised if anything in the Core Rulebook makes reference specifically to the magus class.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


I would be very, very surprised if anything in the Core Rulebook makes reference specifically to the magus class.

I'm PRETTY sure there are some spells with variable casting stats that make reference to stuff like "Use Int (for Wizards and Magi), Wis (for Clerics and Inquisitors), or Cha (for Sorcerers, Oracles, and Bards)" but I could be wrong. My CRB PDF has something wrong with it and it gives me an error any time I try to look at it.


Referencing every possible class is a pretty inefficient way to do it anyways, 'use the stat associated with casting this spell' covers every possibility without mentioning classes that may not exist in the context of the book at hand, and is much shorter... It's only longer when compared to a spell like Spiritual Weapon that doesn't discuss multiple classes' stats at all but just states Wisdom and that's that.

Sacred Servant (Domain) Paladins also can get Spiritual Weapon via War Domain (+others?), and they use CHA to cast like Oracles.
That is probably more 'important' of an issue than Oracles, since it is part of the single Domain that Sacred Servants get as a class ability, while it is just another of many generic spells for Oracles to choose from. (even if having a positive WIS modifier is still a rather good idea for Oracles if they care about their Will Saves, relying solely on base Save progression isn't quite adequate)


As a PFS player with an oracle I'd love to get spiritual weapon (and it's ilk) as spell that uses primary casting stat instead of wisdom.

But when the spell gets a -1 instead of +4 to hit.... yeah, can't justify it.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Rynjin wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


I would be very, very surprised if anything in the Core Rulebook makes reference specifically to the magus class.

I'm PRETTY sure there are some spells with variable casting stats that make reference to stuff like "Use Int (for Wizards and Magi), Wis (for Clerics and Inquisitors), or Cha (for Sorcerers, Oracles, and Bards)" but I could be wrong. My CRB PDF has something wrong with it and it gives me an error any time I try to look at it.

I just redownloaded the 6th printing Core Rulebook PDF and did a search.

* The word "inquisitor" doesn't appear in the book anywhere.
* "Oracle" appears in the crystal ball entry, where it says "So well-known are these items that many so-called oracles or fortune-tellers use similar appearing (but completely non-magical) replicas of these items to ply their trades," which obviously isn't referring to the oracle class.
* "Magus" doesn't appear in the book anywhere.
* "Magi" appears in the contest of the staff of the magi, but that's not referring to the magus class.

We wouldn't reword the Core Rulebook to specifically refer to classes that appear in later books because we'd have to explain or include a reference to the fact that it's a class in another book. The spells you're thinking of are almost certainly spells from books that were published after the APG and UM.

Contributor

Personally, I feel like this is a ruling that only affects PFS players. Those spells will continue to function off of Charisma for the Oracle in my games.

That said, simply referring to spellcasting ability score instead of "Charsima (sorcerer / oracle) or Intelligence (witch / wizard) and so on might be a better strategy going forward.


To a certain extent, all of the FAQs apply mostly to PFS :)

And there is a problem with the "spellcasting ability score" nomenclature. I agree that it's better than listing out the ability scores.

But what do you do with an archetype like the Scarred Witch Doctor? It, RAW, doesn't use Constitution for bonus spells granted by high ability score. Instead, they still use Intelligence for that. So they have *two* spellcasting ability scores. And there are a number of 3pp classes that split the stats like this.

The best one I've seen is "uses the spellcasting ability modifier used to determine spell DCs".


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I just redownloaded the 6th printing Core Rulebook PDF and did a search.

* The word "inquisitor" doesn't appear in the book anywhere.
* "Oracle" appears in the crystal ball entry, where it says "So well-known are these items that many so-called oracles or fortune-tellers use similar appearing (but completely non-magical) replicas of these items to ply their trades," which obviously isn't referring to the oracle class.
* "Magus" doesn't appear in the book anywhere.
* "Magi" appears in the contest of the staff of the magi, but that's not referring to the magus class.

We wouldn't reword the core rulebook to specifically refer to classes that appear in later books because we'd have to explain or include a reference to the fact that it's a class in another book. The spells you're thinking of are almost certainly spells from books that were published after the APG and UM.

Ah, my mistake then.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
Is there any sort of appeal process for FAQ rulings?

No, and there shouldn't be and won't be.

If you don't like the ruling, please don't waste their time trying to get them to change it. Just house rule it or ask your GM's to do so.


Me creature of Golarion. Maybe misunderstand world-builder "Paizo Staff" pantheon. Why not FAQ button for ask Staff beings important questions?

Like so...

1. How to end war?

2. What most delicious food ever?

3. Does regeneration mean Trolls not die old age? Who oldest Troll anyway? Where? He or she own cool magic stuff?

4. See young cute Troll lady and want Do The Hokie Pokie. What best to say?

5. What best Wish spell wish?

Okie. Y'all all use FAQ button now.


@SKR: Thanks for checking in. I really appreciate how often I see you guys on the boards interacting with the community. I understand that keeping a living document like the PF rule-set is a herculean task and you guys do an outstanding job.

@Cheapy: When writing up one of those archetypes I’d just use language like the following.
Casting stat: The Scarred Witch Doctor changes her casting stat to Constitution for all game effects other than bonus spells. She still determines her class’s bonus spell base don her Intelligence score.

@Mordo: Answering #1: Kill all of the people that don’t agree with you.


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
@Mordo: Answering #1: Kill all of the people that don’t agree with you.

No that #2.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / FAQ Appeal All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.