Magus Spell Combat: what spell may I cast?

[seebs]

SKR, thanks for the detailed thing, but I want to make something really clear:

So far as I know, no one has the confusion that you are addressing here. I have not, at any point, thought that this language bypassed any of the standard casting requirements (must have spell prepared or have a spell slot and have it in the spells known list).

I am not talking about the OP's "cast any spell even if I haven't ever learned it or prepared it" question, because that is indeed very easy.

I have been talking about the other ambiguity, which is "what if it is a spell I have the ability to cast right now, and it is a spell that is found on the magus spell list, but the specific casting I'd be using comes from another class"?

Your clarification that the classes generally assume they're single-classed casters does help, but it just makes the "why is it worded this way" question even more confusing. Given that, and in parallel to the spontaneous cure rules, it seems like it would be sufficient for spell combat to say "cast a spell". After all, if it's assuming you're single-classed, that obviously means "one of your magus spells which you have prepared".

So why the long extra qualifier?

And yes, I do think the magus wording is more confusing than the cleric language. The cleric language makes perfectly good sense if interpreted within the "assuming a single-classed caster" framework. By contrast, the magus language doesn't. If we are assuming a single-classed caster, there's no reason for any qualifiers.

So there is a legitimate linguistic reason to assume that "any spell on the magus spell list" is intending to communicate something distinct from what would be meant by either "a spell" (which might be confusing, but would at least reasonably be interpreted to imply magus spells), or "one of your magus spells", which is totally clear.

What it comes down to is that while the magus listing is restrictive in a way the cleric one isn't, it also specifies something that is elsewhere used explicitly to unrestrict things -- the "spell list", which is not in any way restricted to things you know or have prepared. "Know and have prepared" is implied by casting to begin with, so things like "I can cast chain lightning even though I don't know it and I'm first level" are ridiculous.

But there's a qualifier there, and there's prior art in the Pathfinder rules of cases where the qualifier "spell on your spell list" is explicitly used to indicate that you do not need to actually be able to cast that spell as a member of that class, only that you are a member of that class. This shows up in spell trigger items, and also in the fringe cases of scroll use (e.g., an 11th level wizard scribes chain lightning, so an 11th level magus can cast it from the scroll).

And this doesn't trip the "seems too good to be true" thing for me, because frankly, I can't come up with a single way to build a character who would get any kind of useful benefit from it, and wouldn't be noticably weaker than a character who wasn't trying to benefit from this.

The problem here is not that I'm trying to interpret the rules as though I'm stupid. It's that I'm making the assumption that extra words are there because they change the meaning in some way, and that if someone says "any spell on the magus spell list" rather than "your magus spells", there must be some kind of difference that they wanted to communicate. Because otherwise they'd have written half as many words.

[seebs]

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

seebs wrote:

I don't necessarily generally think it's safe to assume that coworkers know each others' intent.

When it comes to our team, you can count on it. Trust me, we talk every day about the rules, we discuss the wording in the rulebook and the intent of the rules, where they collide and where they deviate. We have had a number of discussions about this thread.

You've asked your question, we have answered it. You have made your viewpoint plain on many posts in this thread. Thank you.

And yet, every one of those answers has contained discussion of a position I have never held, and have myself dismissed as obviously impossible. I am sort of getting the impression that you guys think I am the OP, or that my question had anything to do with the OP's question.

That's why I keep trying to make this distinction: Because there's two completely different misunderstandings of this rule, and every response I see is to one of them and includes arguments that are completely inapplicable to the other. And the one I was arguing appeared to be RAW (but not RAI) is one that I've consistently seen other PF players conclude to be the meaning, because otherwise the word "list" wouldn't be there.

To put it another way: It's clear that you guys are getting frustrated because you keep answering this question, and people keep acting as though you haven't. And that makes sense, because feeling like people have not heard what you said is very frustrating.

But that's the exact situation I'm in: I keep saying "yes, yes, I know A is stupid, but look at B, which is totally different", and getting more and more frustrated-sounding responses saying "NO, WE ALREADY SAID A IS WRONG". So I also feel like the things I've said are being ignored, and dismissed as arguments for a position I've repeatedly and explicitly said I do not hold and have never held.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

seebs wrote:

So I also feel like the things I've said are being ignored, and dismissed as arguments for a position I've repeatedly and explicitly said I do not hold and have never held.

I don't understand. We are responding to you and this issue, but you feel like you are being ignored?

We have read, digested, and discussed the opinions (yours and others) in the thread. We have commented on the opinions and answered your questions and even given a lot of commentary on them.

How are you being ignored?

[seebs]

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

seebs wrote:

So I also feel like the things I've said are being ignored, and dismissed as arguments for a position I've repeatedly and explicitly said I do not hold and have never held.

I don't understand. We are responding to you and this issue, but you feel like you are being ignored?

We have read, digested, and discussed the opinions (yours and others) in the thread. We have commented on the opinions and answered your questions and even given a lot of commentary on them.

How are you being ignored?

I don't exactly feel like I'm being ignored, but I can't tell whether I am successsfully communicating. The responses keep referring to a thing which is, so far as I can tell, completely unrelated to my position. Look at SKR's fairly excellent post, which makes the "assuming you're single-classed" argument, and then note this:

"The language is a little weak in some places, but you know that there's a realistic way of interpreting it (I'm casting a magus spell I have prepared) and an unrealistic way of interpreting it (I'm casting any spell that happens to be on the magus spell list even if I don't know it, don't have it prepared, don't have the Int to cast it, and I'm in a silence spell)."

This refers to two positions, one of which is absolutely not any position I have ever held, or have ever argued for. But I have a third position. And the arguments presented by SKR do somewhat apply to that position as well, but the highly visible presence of a division of things into two positions, one of which is not mine and is not even like mine a little bit, makes it hard to tell whether the position I actually argued for is being considered.

To clarify:
I think it is absolutely clear that "cast" carries with it all the usual baggage. You must have the spell prepared, or you must have an open slot and know it if you're a spontaneous caster, you must be able to speak if it has verbal components, you must have a suitable level, and all that.

What I think is confusing about the rules as written is the use of the qualifier "on the magus spell list" instead of "one of your magus spells". Specifically, the term "spell list".

This doesn't change my interpretation of what the word "cast" means. It still obviously implies meeting the stat requirements, having the spell prepared or known and an available slot, and all that. But if you look at how the rules handle a spell completion or spell trigger item, in both cases, the requirement "on your spell list" means exactly that -- you can now cast the spell from the scroll, or activate the spell trigger item.

And one interpretation that is not obviously-unreasonable, and doesn't appear to me to make the class more powerful or unrealistic in any way, would be that it does not matter why or how you can cast a given spell; if you can cast it, and it is on the magus spell list, it works with spell combat. And that seems probably-wrong, and certainly it seems clear that you didn't intend it that way.

But it's a fairly common interpretation I see people come to when they consider this rule, because "any spell on the magus spell list" is a much longer phrase than "one of your magus spells" or "a magus spell", or even just "your spells" if we use the always-assuming-single-classed rule.

The issue here isn't that we have two interpretations, one obviously reasonable and one obviously unreasonable. It's that there's three, one obviously reasonable, one obviously unreasonable, and one sort of debatable but I've certainly seen sillier things and it can't possibly matter to any reasonably sane build, can it?

And the thing that makes me unsure whether this distinction has been perceived is that SKR's post, like all the previous posts I've seen on the topic, contrasts the intended position primarily with the unreasonably-extreme interpretation of "any spell".

Also, add in the page or so another user spent arguing with me, where it became clear that they thought I was arguing for that silly position as well. So I know that it is possible for a reader to think my posts are intended to communicate that silly position. And all the posts from the Paizo people are at least consistent with the belief that I am arguing for that silly position. So I am unsure. And I am not as quick to assume communication has been successful as most people are, since I know that much of the time when people get irritated with each other, there's been some miscommunication somewhere.

[Cheapy]

So, I greatly appreciate the clarifications, but I will try to give a little history on this question, as it pertains to seebs and his point.

This question has been around for a long while, and I even spent a good amount of time trawling the playtest forums for any clarifications on this. I don't think I found anything, but I did my research. When it comes up, maybe once a month?, many of the same exact points that have been made here have been brought up. Really, it's the same script but with different actors, like so many other questions.

Going from memory, the consensus reached is a reluctant "yes, it's any spell on the magus list". Reluctant because people weren't a fan of this, but that's what the rules said. It said magus spell. Not "spell prepared in a magus spell slot" or anything like that.

Even the, now missing it would seem, Grick, hitherto the de facto expert on the magus class, has this to say:

Quote:

I think the intent is for Magus spell slots only.

...<snip>...

By RAW and plain English, I think any spell cast that's on the list counts. <snip>

Most people read that line and think it does what it says on the tin. The "Assumes single classed character" direction, while wonderful, doesn't really jive with the Bloodline Arcana FAQ we've been referencing for going on three years now. I'm pretty sure it's even been used to justify that, yes, it's any magus spell (as in: spell the magus can cast).

Seebs' point is, from what I can tell, that overclarifying the ability would be a good thing in this case, possibly for errata.

This is already a class that can full-attack and cast a spell AND get an extra weapon attack in, all during one round. It's not too crazy to think, given that combination of abilities, that it's meant to be any spell the magus can cast, not just ones in the magus spell slots. It's already a class that interacts with the rules crazily.

I guess my point is, that a lot of people on the forums have been getting this wrong. But to me, it's understandable why forumites have been getting this wrong.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Cheapy wrote:

It's not too crazy to think, given that combination of abilities, that it's meant to be any spell the magus can cast, not just ones in the magus spell slots.

So I repeat myself:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If there are two interpretations, and one seems too good to be true, go with the other one.

[Cheapy]

Yep! Just trying to provide some context.

Jim G. and I were talking the other day about how there should be a FAQ answer saying "When in doubt, rule conservatively." just because it'd help with cases like this :)

...or the Bastard Sword thing. Or the armor spikes thing, or...well, most of the recent FAQs!

[seebs]

But, that's the thing.

1. There's more than two interpretations.
2. I can't come up with any examples of a character who relies on the "any spell on the list" interpretation, and where it's even "good", let alone "too good to be true".

Think about it this way. If a magus finds an arcane scroll of Shocking Grasp, the magus can use it. Why? Because it's on the magus spell list. If a magus finds a wand of Shocking Grasp, the magus can use it. Why? Because it's on the magus spell list.

I can't think of any examples in the rules where "on the X spell list" is not used specifically to indicate that what matters is that the spell list for class X contains that spell, not whether the particular character has prepared it in slots they get from their class X levels. Except this one.

And ultimately, it's not even close to "too good to be true". It's pointless. If the answer that came down were "well, of course, it's just like the selection for spell trigger items, if you can cast the spell, and the spell is on the magus list, you can use it with spell combat", does anyone seriously think there would be a sudden shift in magus builds showing up at PFS games? I don't. There's no reason for anyone to do a non-magus build and take magus levels to try to use this, except maybe the crazy "and then cast defensively with a huge to-hit penalty to make your concentration checks more often" thing, and that's... not really a good tradeoff for a full level's worth of spellcasting progression.

[Xaratherus]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If there are two interpretations, and one seems too good to be true, go with the other one.

k, I have to chime in here, and hope to do so diplomatically.

What about those (numerous) cases where that isn't true?

Let me offer one example: The original thought on Sorcerer's arcana (on these forums, and in all of my gaming groups in general) was that they were only applicable to spells prepared in the Sorcerer's spell slots.

If we apply the rule that you mention earlier - "All caster classes are written assuming you're a single-caster class" - then the expectation would be that the above is true.

Yet it's not. It's been errata'd to note that arcana powers can be applied to all spells cast from any class. It even includes a footnote that, to some extent or another, contradicts your above statement: That we should assume that any class feature that modifies spellcasting ability modifies it for all classes.

It even violates your thumb rule that the pessimistic interpretation is usually the right one.

And I know you don't mean either of those rules to be universal, "applies every single time" guidelines, but the arcana ruling is just one of several. The recent ruling on SLAs qualifying you for feats, prestige classes, etc. is another stellar example that violates this second thumb rule. The (admitted reversal) ruling on Haste applying to Spell Combat is another one.

The language that caused confusion here - "spell list" - isn't always used in such a way to be universally interchangeable. And in this case, I personally see enough contradictions of your 'thumb rules' to just believe (and obviously I can't make you, or anyone else believe this) that this was just an unclear statement. The proper track would have been to admit that, clarify it, and then move on - to claim that people are "reading it stupidly" is less than tactful.

[seebs]

Yeah. If you had asked me whether SLAs qualified for anything I would have said "of course not, because spell-like abilities aren't casting". They do not have components. They aren't prevented by being silenced or immobilized. I would never, ever, have ruled that you could use them to qualify for anything that required "ability to cast", because until I went and re-read the rules, I didn't even think that using them counted as "casting". I would just have assumed that spell-like abilities were magical abilities that had effects identical to a spell simply for convenience of specifying what they do.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Xaratherus wrote:

And I know you don't mean either of those rules to be universal, "applies every single time" guidelines

Exactly.

We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.

In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.

This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.

And that's why we have a gamemaster to run the game and make rulings. Sometimes those rulings are conservative. Sometimes they're liberal. Sometimes they interface with house rules and create unexpected consequences.

We're all just going to have to deal with that.

[137ben]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

And I know you don't mean either of those rules to be universal, "applies every single time" guidelines

Exactly.

We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.

In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.

This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.

And that's why we have a gamemaster to run the game and make rulings. Sometimes those rulings are conservative. Sometimes they're liberal. Sometimes they interface with house rules and create unexpected consequences.

We're all just going to have to deal with that.

I must say, this is a wonderful explanation of the source of rules ambiguities.

There are (and likely always will be) people who insist that the rules 'should' be perfectly clear and unambiguous all the time, even if they aren't sure what that means. There are also people who insist that the rules already are perfectly clear and unambiguous all the time. But you have explained, very succinctly, why the rules are written the way they are, congratulations.

The one thing I would like to add is that the paradigm of rule design changed part-way through the life of the system. When 3.0 was first released, it was written in a far more relaxed style than current sourcebooks. GMs were expected to do a lot more interpretation than they are now. Which is why the biggest chunk of rules confusion today comes from the core rules--people are looking at text written 13 years ago and reading it as if it was written yesterday, with the current 3.5/PF paradigm.
The biggest confusions usually come from later rules that reference older, vaguer ones. A prime example from 3.5 was Iron Heart Surge, which allowed you to end any "conditions" affecting you.
IHS did not define 'condition', and it seemed to assume conditions were defined somewhere in the core rules. Unfortunately, they weren't (at least, not clearly). The line between what counts as a condition for the purposes of IHS and what does not is extremely fuzzy, and people who have very clear understandings of the system still argue about it today. Silly extreme interpretations naturally showed up in forums and in gaming groups, with one extreme being that since 'condition' is not a gaming term, it does not exist, and so IHS does nothing, and the other extreme being that almost anything is a condition (e.g., use IHS to end the condition "exposed to sunlight" to destroy the sun, or end the condition "under level 100" to instantly level up to 100 (or higher? What does that even mean?)). Obviously, neither of those extremes are used in play, but precisely how to interpret Iron Heart Surge vary wildly from table to table.
There's nothing wrong with table-variation, though, that is why we have GMs, and that is one of the beauties of table-top games. The rules do not need to be interpreted by a compiler, they can be interpreted by a human.

[seebs]

The big reason, I think, that people ask about RAW vs. RAI is stuff like PFS, where the consequences of a bad ruling can last beyond the point at which you decide not to play with that GM anymore.

[Sean K Reynolds]

In Pathfinder, the game is skewed for you to win.

In PFS, your characters are even more powerful than the default character expectation, so you're even more likely to win.

And in PFS, it's pretty easy to get your character brought back from the dead.

So even if there is table variance that kills your character, it's not that big of a deal.

[seebs]

Gaming in a nutshell: "It's not too big a deal if someone's decisions get you killed sometimes."

And that is a good point. The main thing that I've seen people be unhappy about is if they suffer a significant loss of resources due to a questionable ruling, or if something fundamental to how their character normally plays suddenly stops working.

... admittedly, I can't see the "spell list" thing ever being one of those, because no one's yet convinced me that there's an otherwise-reasonable character build where it would make a difference.

[bbangerter]

seebs wrote:

But, that's the thing.

1. There's more than two interpretations.

In context, not really. There might be a hundred possible interpretations really. But in context there is the RAI that has been explained, and the weak language version that allows any spell so long as it is on the magus spell list. Two interpretations only in that context.

In the case of a hundred interpretations we could sequentially take any two at a time, compare them, throw out the least sensible one, then continue till we have whittled it down to a single interpretation.

I acknowledge it is possible there might be multiple ones in the end that all possibly make sense, depending on how strong or weak the given language for a rule is. I can in this particular case *see* the more liberal interpretation, but I've never considered it the valid one.

[seebs]

bbangerter wrote:

seebs wrote:

But, that's the thing.

1. There's more than two interpretations.

In context, not really. There might be a hundred possible interpretations really. But in context there is the RAI that has been explained, and the weak language version that allows any spell so long as it is on the magus spell list. Two interpretations only in that context.

I don't think so. SKR's post clearly contrasted two things only:

1. You can only use spell combat with Magus spells that you have prepped in your Magus spell slots.
2. You can use spell combat with any spell on the magus spell list, whether or not you know it, have a high enough casting stat to cast it, or are even high enough level to cast it.

But it didn't include:
3. You can use spell combat with any spell you can actually cast, if that spell is on the magus spell list.

But he made it very clear that he was contrasting #1 and #2. And I'd made it pretty clear, I thought, that I was talking about #3.

#1 is indeed "too good to be true" and obviously wrong. #3, however, isn't obviously particularly good. Yes, it probably gives you options you wouldn't have under a more conservative reading, but how often do those options ever matter?

Quote:

I acknowledge it is possible there might be multiple ones in the end that all possibly make sense, depending on how strong or weak the given language for a rule is. I can in this particular case *see* the more liberal interpretation, but I've never considered it the valid one.

I am pretty sure that #3 is the only one which is actually consistent with the general pattern of how those terms are used elsewhere in the rules. Most of the time when the game distinguishes between "spells you can cast" and "your class spell list", it's to unrestrict your options. But #3 is also sort of a surprising ruling, to put it mildly, and clearly contradicts the stated intent of the designers.

But I still can't think of any other reason to say "spell from the magus spell list" instead of "magus spell".

[bbangerter]

seebs wrote:

I don't think so. SKR's post clearly contrasted two things only:
1. You can only use spell combat with Magus spells that you have prepped in your Magus spell slots.
2. You can use spell combat with any spell on the magus spell list, whether or not you know it, have a high enough casting stat to cast it, or are even high enough level to cast it.

But it didn't include:
3. You can use spell combat with any spell you can actually cast, if that spell is on the magus spell list.

But he made it very clear that he was contrasting #1 and #2. And I'd made it pretty clear, I thought, that I was talking about #3.
...

Try extrapolating his example to cover more than just the single comparison he gave...

I mean you wouldn't get into a serious discussion about "Since spell combat doesn't say I can't use a Su in place of casting a spell then obviously I can, and since SKR didn't mention Su's in the examples he gave, clearly I can do so by RAI as well." Yes that's an extremely silly example and an obvious incorrect interpretation, but could we eliminate that possibility without actually have a developer spell it out explicitly?

But to have multiple developers come into the thread, admit to weak language for the write up of the ability, and tell you how its intended to work, then have you continue to go on about the issue... I'm not really sure what points you are hoping to score on that.

[LoneKnave]

I can't think of a reason seebs's version 3 is "too good to be true". If you would want a level of Magus for only that you are giving up 1 BAB and 1 caster level from your main class for sure; which, considering you want to attack (with BAB) while casting (using caster level) is almost always a significant tradeoff.

On the other hand, a one level dip for certain bard archetypes lets you make what is essentially a spontaneous magus without the need for 3rd party splats. I think that alone should be reason enough for it to work as the language implies, even if it goes against the developer intent.

[ciretose]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

And I know you don't mean either of those rules to be universal, "applies every single time" guidelines

Exactly.

We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.

In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.

This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.

And that's why we have a gamemaster to run the game and make rulings. Sometimes those rulings are conservative. Sometimes they're liberal. Sometimes they interface with house rules and create unexpected consequences.

We're all just going to have to deal with that.

*slow clap*

[Xaratherus]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

And I know you don't mean either of those rules to be universal, "applies every single time" guidelines

Exactly.

We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.

In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.

This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.

Going to be absolutely blunt here:

The statement that you made is an excuse, and not really a good one at that.

As someone who does technical writing in his job (and yes, I know there's a difference - there are still similarities enough for the comparison to be valid), if I tried to tell a customer, "Well, we didn't originally write the implementation guide for our product - it was written by the company that owned the product six years ago, and so some of the language is out-of-date and might not make sense when applied to newer operating systems," do you know what their answer would be?

"So why didn't you go back and do it right so I didn't have to waste my time calling you for help?"

If anything, what you've just said is the reason why Pathfinder 2.0 should be a massive priority for Paizo - so that you can go through and correct all the ambiguous language, or at least as much of it as you can catch. Just because you can't make it 100% clear for everyone does not mean that you shouldn't go back and try to make it as clear as you possibly can.

I think you guys make a good product, and I have a lot of fun playing it. That doesn't mean that I - or anyone who agrees with me - should accept excuses for why the rules might be unclear. If anything, I think that the majority of the posters on the forums are most interested in helping move the product from 'good' to great, and it's bothersome when we point out something we believe is unclear and are told "stop reading stupidly."

[LoneKnave]

I'm seconding Xaratherus so hard right now.

[James Risner]

I think this whole question is less about an unclear rule and more about the divide.

Some people who read the rules see only one way to read a rule. The way that gives them more flexibility and more power.

The rules are written, in general, in the way that has less flexibility and less power.

Some people can't see both sides of that coin.

I think if we could all see both sides of this issue (coin) we could come to a consensus on so many other things.

Half of the debates about the rules (and demand for more clarity) is because of the two sides.

[Fomsie]

James Risner wrote:

I think this whole question is less about an unclear rule and more about the divide.

Some people who read the rules see only one way to read a rule. The way that gives them more flexibility and more power.

The rules are written, in general, in the way that has less flexibility and less power.

Some people can't see both sides of that coin.

I think if we could all see both sides of this issue (coin) we could come to a consensus on so many other things.

Half of the debates about the rules (and demand for more clarity) is because of the two sides.

I agree completely. I think the big problem is so many people read the rules in a "well it doesn't say I can't or it could mean this..." in order to make purely power options, whereas the rules are generally written to maintain a standard of balance throughout.

Which is why we have levels and CRs and such. Balance. Sometimes that balance is put in place by limitations placed on a character class/archetype to give a challenge to offset a benefit, or to prevent overly powerful options that trivialize encounters. And sometimes limits are in place purely for "fluff" reasons as a way to give flavor and definition to certain classes so they are something more than just a bunch of numbers as this is still a role playing game.

[LoneKnave]

I actually agree with you James. I have noticed that myself, despite being on the opposite side of the spectrum from you.

Most Vocal people on this forum can be divided into permissive and... not permissive (dismissive? preventive? unpermissive?). You can see this very clearly in the discussion topics. And it goes both ways too.

You'll often times see someone arguing that things don't work even when by the rules they plainly do.

And almost as often as you'll see someone argue that something that probably does not work by RAW or RAI is supposed to.

What's amusing about this, is that it is very often NOT about power, despite what you are implying in your post. It's about allowing or not. A permissive can allow a reading that balances the game the same way a dismissive can disallow one that would lower the power level.

A permissive person will allow a power increasing rules interaction if it is properly justifiable and not going counter to rules as easily as an unpermissive one will disallow an underpowered option purely because he feels the rules don't explicitly support it. This doesn't mean they allow/disallow everything that's even a bit questionable, just that some people (including developers) show a pretty easy to see tendency here.

Personally, I'm about allowing anything that doesn't imbalance the game. I think this is the sensible approach for a game that's about as much combining abilities, spells, powers, and using your tools in unison as Pathfinder is. And usually, it's the lower tier character concepts that get the boost anyway, which further improves the game (for me). I'm hard pressed to justify some of the rulings that reduce flexibility, for this reason.

[seebs]

bbangerter wrote:

Try extrapolating his example to cover more than just the single comparison he gave...

I did try, sort of. I can't make it extend to this, because there is no significant power advantage to the "permissive" ruling, so it isn't "too good to be true". And if anything, it gets even worse if we assume the "written as though it is your only spellcasting class" rule of thumb, because that suggests that there was no need for any qualifier, not just no need for a longer qualifier.

But the presence of that example is why I got the impression that he was responding to a thing I wasn't saying, and hadn't noticed that I was arguing for a different position. Because that example's irrelevant at best to my arguments/question, and could easily be understood as a ridiculous strawman, or something similar. Which is atypical behavior for SKR, so I was assuming there's been some sort of miscommunication.

Quote:

I mean you wouldn't get into a serious discussion about "Since spell combat doesn't say I can't use a Su in place of casting a spell then obviously I can, and since SKR didn't mention Su's in the examples he gave, clearly I can do so by RAI as well." Yes that's an extremely silly example and an obvious incorrect interpretation, but could we eliminate that possibility without actually have a developer spell it out explicitly?

This is the opposite of applicable.

You're talking about "since it doesn't say..." things.

I'm talking about something it explicitly does say, which it does so by adding extra words to say it. And I grant that it's apparently not their intent, but I don't get why they used more words to create an ambiguity which wouldn't have existed with fewer.

The reason this keeps coming up, and multiple people have independently read that language, and reached the conclusion that as long as you can legitimately cast a spell, and that spell is present on the magus spell list, you can use it with spell combat, is that the game repeatedly uses "on the X spell list" to mean exactly that.

Quote:

But to have multiple developers come into the thread, admit to weak language for the write up of the ability, and tell you how its intended to work, then have you continue to go on about the issue... I'm not really sure what points you are hoping to score on that.

I don't really try to "score points".

What I am looking for, and have not seen, is a developer post which cannot be interpreted as a response only to the "that means you can cast spells you've never learned and aren't high enough level to cast" thing.

Yesterday, at least one person interpreted my posts arguing for the "you have to be able to cast it, but if you can, and it's on the magus spell list, it apparently works with spell combat" view as arguing for this other view. SKR's post is 100% comprehensible if you think he also interpreted my posts that way. None of it contradicts that reading.

So I know that at least one person thought I was asking a totally different question (or asserting a totally different claim) from the one I was actually bringing up. And I know that I have dev posts all of which are completely consistent with the belief that they also thought I was asking that totally different question.

And I think SKR's post on the general historical mishmash of rules does give a fairly good explanation of why there's extra words there, which have previously only ever been used to make a particular distinction, but which in this case apparently have no impact whatsoever on the meaning of the ability. But it's still a little surprising, and I'm still not entirely sure whether the various participants in the thread are aware that the "can cast anything" interpretation isn't the one I've been talking about.

[seebs]

James Risner wrote:

I think this whole question is less about an unclear rule and more about the divide.

Some people who read the rules see only one way to read a rule. The way that gives them more flexibility and more power.

I rarely see that. Maybe it happens, but not often.

FWIW, my background here is that I was on an international programming languages standards committee for a decade as a hobby. I love the study of systems of rules as an end in itself. I have been fascinated by debates about the magus class, even though I have zero interest in ever playing one and would be highly unlikely to use one as an NPC either; I just don't like the flavor of the class. But I want to know how the rules work and how they go together.

So my basic goal in discerning RAW is to comprehend the rules as they are, with minimal influence from things like game balance, for the purpose of understanding the rules. I only consider things like game balance or "this result is obviously stupid" when I start talking about RAI. But if RAW doesn't trip any of those, I tend to assume they're fine and not mess with them.

[James Risner]

seebs wrote:

it isn't "too good to be true". And if anything, it gets even worse if we assume the "written as though it is your only spellcasting class" rule of thumb, because that suggests that there was no need for any qualifier, not just no need for a longer qualifier.

Think of the "too good to be true" as a way to imagine two readings and pick the more limiting reading. Even if the more powerful one isn't exactly rising to the level of "too good to be true."

They are very good about adding in a lot of additional language to make it clear some power really is good.

Like Magic Missile saying "you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures." Without this line there would be two readings. One that permits hitting the same multiple times and one that doesn't. Clearly hitting multiple missiles on the same target isn't a power thing (since it is allowed), but without the line we wouldn't know if we should go with the "too good to be true" way or the "only several creatures" way.

[blahpers]

I agree wholeheartedly with Xaratherus.

With respect, the "too good to be true" principle has been thoroughly and utterly debunked multiple times in this thread and others, so any argument relying on that principle can be summarily tossed, whether it's from the words of a designer, a random poster, or Zombie Gygax.

Second, stating that the rules are inflexible and that questioners are trying to stretch them is exactly the opposite of the problem. The rules are flexible, and many times the designers have stated that a rule is left vague to give the GM latitude to interpret it. Unfortunately, there is no way to distinguish which rules are intended to be "hard" but worded in a less than precise way and which rules are purposefully vague. The existence of both types of rule are why this forum even exists--otherwise, the answer to every single question would be "ask your GM, there are no hard rules" or "here is the more precise erratum".

To the development team: yes, sometimes people are willfully obtuse and ignore "common sense". Sometimes, however, a player's common sense is not the same as a designer's common sense. Please don't assume that anybody that reads the rules literally is being willfully obtuse. You wrote the rules, after all, and if you wrote them in such a way that (at the moment of publication) they can be interpreted literally but against intent, then you have only yourselves to blame for promoting a system with both vague and straightforward rules. Such a system will produce confusion among both GMs and players, and "we're all just going to have to deal with that"--including the design team.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Xaratherus wrote:

If anything, what you've just said is the reason why Pathfinder 2.0 should be a massive priority for Paizo - so that you can go through and correct all the ambiguous language, or at least as much of it as you can catch. Just because you can't make it 100% clear for everyone does not mean that you shouldn't go back and try to make it as clear as you possibly can.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about why we should or shouldn't do Pathfinder 2.0, and if or when we should do that. Just understand that while language quirks in the books may cause problems in your campaign, they cause problems in our work, and we are fully aware that these problems exist, and some of them we can't fix right now.

Xaratherus wrote:

"So why didn't you go back and do it right so I didn't have to waste my time calling you for help?"

That's an easy question to answer. Here's the long answer:

* Paizo's business model was publishing D&D-compatible adventures.
* There weren't any copies of the 3.5 D&D Player's Handbook in stores any more.
* Paizo wasn't given much of a preview of the 4E rules or the license that would allow Paizo to publish 4E-compatible products, and deciding to publish supplements for an unfinished game and under a license you hadn't seen isn't a smart business plan.
* That license had severe restrictions that made it a poor choice for Paizo, most importantly (1) Wizards could update or change the license at any time, and Paizo's only option would be to accept the new terms or to stop using the license, and stopping would require Paizo to destroy remaining inventory published under the license, (2) Wizards could revoke the license at any time, requiring Paizo to destroy remaining inventory published under the license, and (3) the original version of the license forbade Paizo from publishing or selling 3E content, including remaining copies of 3E materials, which meant Paizo's backstock of 3E products would have to be thrown away.
* So Paizo was stuck between publishing adventures for 3.5, a game that new players couldn't start playing because there were no PHs in stores, or publishing adventures for 4E, a game that wasn't out yet (PF#1 published August 2007, PF announced March 2008, 4E published August 2008).
* So Paizo decided to take the 3.5 rules, update them, and publish the Pathfinder RPG, and immediately set about doing so (Beta published GenCon 2008, Core Rulebook published Gen Con 2009).
* So between March 2008 and July 2008, Jason worked his ass off to get the 410 pages of the Beta written, edited, and typeset (there were many days where Erik had Jason work from home, because we couldn't spare the 30 minutes each way of his commute to the office). Compare that to a typical core line release, which is 256 pages, has 9 designer-months of development (3 designers x 3 months), and has 4–6 editor-months of editing (2–3 editors x 2 months).
* And then a massive playtest where 50,000 people downloaded and playtested it for a couple months.
* Then we took all of that information and created a 576-page Core Rulebook in about 4 months. And all the while we continued to publish monthly products for 3E, and made the switch over to PFRPG without knowing if we'd be able to maintain our barely-able-to-pay-bills level of sales, or if PFRPG sales would be better or worse. Fortunately, the answer was "better."
* But at no time during any part of this process did we have a spare week to sit down and review all the language in the book to make sure everything was synched up and perfectly clear (and it would take much longer than a week to get it done... more like months, plural). We worked evenings and weekends to get it done. One person on staff had a series of panic attack and briefly went blind because of all the stress from this project (I am not kidding).

The short answer: You weren't there. You don't understand what it was like, how much work was involved, the risk we were taking, and how we were already working ourselves to the bone to get it done. We did the best we could under extraordinarily problematic circumstances. Your suggestion that we should have "done it right" is insulting.

My point still stands: yes, the rules could be clearer. Yes, that's why the role of the GM is so important.

And if you don't like that answer, house rule it for your campaign. The GM is in charge of how the rules are implemented in the campaign. I'm saying We can't do all the work for you to make your game run perfectly smooth. There are always going to be times where the GM has to make a ruling because there are infinite possibilities in active gameplay, and you're going to read something differently than the designer or editor read it.

And if you don't like that answer, maybe you should just play a different game, because all of our working evenings and weekends isn't enough to satisfy you.

I think we're done discussing this magus topic, and the general topic of "why aren't things worded more clearly all the time?," and the topic of "if you knew it was a problem, why didn't you fix it?"

Thread closed.