| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the questioner archetype of the investigator class gives up extracts to cast spells from the bard list. It gains light armor proficiency, but does not have any verbiage discussing arcane spell failure in the section discussing arcane spell failure. Many people believe this was an oversight, but RAW this would mean that the archetype cannot cast spells without a chance of failure making this a terrible choice. Is there a ruling/clarification regarding this? I have tried to search, but can't find anything official. Thanks
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
So the questioner archetype of the investigator class gives up extracts to cast spells from the bard list. It gains light armor proficiency, but does not have any verbiage discussing arcane spell failure in the section discussing arcane spell failure. Many people believe this was an oversight, but RAW this would mean that the archetype cannot cast spells without a chance of failure making this a terrible choice. Is there a ruling/clarification regarding this? I have tried to search, but can't find anything official. Thanks
The bard's ability to cast bard spells in light armor and while using a shield while not incurring arcane spell failure is in the weapon proficiency section of the bard class.
As written, a Questioner does suffer arcane spell failure. I am not aware of any FAQ or errata.
As I feared. This is very depressing as It makes that archetype really quite terrible where it would have been a neat change.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
As I feared. This is very depressing as It makes that archetype really quite terrible where it would have been a neat change.
My advice is to not wear armor (perhaps use a wand of mage armor), or deal with 10% ASF from a mithral shirt (which isn't very bad at all). IMO that is a far cry from "quite terrible".
Archives of Nethys
|
...My advice is to not wear armor (perhaps use a wand of mage armor), or deal with 10% ASF from a mithral shirt (which isn't very bad at all). IMO that is a far cry from "quite terrible".
I just started playing my questioner last night, and a wand of mage armor is my plan. I am consider doing a mithral chain shirt and and arcane armor training since I don't really have many swift actions besides windy escape. I am just not sure if I can squeeze the feat in there.
While it's something that can be mitigated, it really isn't something that should have to be. And yes you can do thing like a wand of mage armor or a mithral shirt, but those are things that take at least a couple of levels to be able to be able to purchase. As far as arcane armor training goes there are a lot of swift actions that an investigator can be doing, he shouldn't have to give up those actions and a feat to accomplish a central class feature.
Either way, the usual verbiage that accompanies classes that have arcane casting but don't receive the ability to ignore the penalties associated with the proficencies they have is missing. This indicates (though it doesn't prove) that there it was likely an oversight. All I really want is a clarification confirming one way or the other is the designers' intent. If it was intended to be as it is RAW then I'll just accept that and not play a questioner , but if it was intended that a questioner should be able to cast spells while wearing light armor (which I believe it was) then I want to be able to play the archetype that way. It's not over powered and it makes playing the class which already somewhat struggles at low level much more manageable that penalizing the class when it is at its worst.
Anyways, thank you all for the replies, I know I sound a bit salty, I'm not upset with anyone in particular, just the situation.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
All I really want is a clarification confirming one way or the other is the designers' intent.
Once material is submitted to a developer it is out of the designer's hands, and is subject to change in both intent and execution. So the designer's intent, while not irrelevant in a larger sense, is irrelevant as to how we the PFS players use that material.
You would need a PFS campaign clarification, or a FAQ, for PFS purposes. Otherwise for PFS you play it as it lies.
Though it has no bearing on this, in a home game I would let you ignore the ASF.
Once material is submitted to a developer it is out of the designer's hands, and is subject to change in both intent and execution. So the designer's intent, while not irrelevant in a larger sense, is irrelevant as to how we the PFS players use that material.
You would need a PFS campaign clarification, or a FAQ, for PFS purposes. Otherwise for PFS you play it as it lies.
All true, I suppose I misspoke as really I'd like an official clarification.