General Discussion
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
Also agree with jkason.
Commander_Fallout
First Post
Cool, It didn't really seem like a big thing, but I just wanted to make sure.
On that note, I do have another, partially related concern that would actually involve a change in the rules. That is, it involves oracles and Spiritual Weapon. While oracles can use nearly any cleric spell with ease, they really cannot use Spiritual Weapon effectively, if at all, because it explicitly states that it uses the caster's Wisdom bonus for a majority of its effects. This is mainly because it's a core spell that existed before the oracle existed (there are a few others like this as well that I can't recall off the top of my head), so I was wondering if, perhaps, the oracle could substitute the Wisdom portion with his Charisma.
After the oracle was introduced, all of the divine spells published that used wisdom also gave the option of substituting with charisma for oracles (Take, for example Jolting Portent and Chain of Perdition); the only reason these few core spells weren't errata'd was to protect the idea that core rules can stand on their own without the other books. This may seem like a bit of an effort for one or two spells that an average oracle player could just skip past, but, unfortunately, Spiritual Weapon is on my Mystery's spell list, leaving my choices with either: A. Taking the chance to fix it for myself and my fellow oracles (especially those of the Ancestor persuasion), or B. Having a spell known slot dedicated to something I can't use nor trade away for something better.
On that note, I do have another, partially related concern that would actually involve a change in the rules. That is, it involves oracles and Spiritual Weapon. While oracles can use nearly any cleric spell with ease, they really cannot use Spiritual Weapon effectively, if at all, because it explicitly states that it uses the caster's Wisdom bonus for a majority of its effects. This is mainly because it's a core spell that existed before the oracle existed (there are a few others like this as well that I can't recall off the top of my head), so I was wondering if, perhaps, the oracle could substitute the Wisdom portion with his Charisma.
After the oracle was introduced, all of the divine spells published that used wisdom also gave the option of substituting with charisma for oracles (Take, for example Jolting Portent and Chain of Perdition); the only reason these few core spells weren't errata'd was to protect the idea that core rules can stand on their own without the other books. This may seem like a bit of an effort for one or two spells that an average oracle player could just skip past, but, unfortunately, Spiritual Weapon is on my Mystery's spell list, leaving my choices with either: A. Taking the chance to fix it for myself and my fellow oracles (especially those of the Ancestor persuasion), or B. Having a spell known slot dedicated to something I can't use nor trade away for something better.
This one seems trickier to me, largely because Paizo's been so wishy-washy about it. They made a FAQ item for it, but their FAQ seems to essentially say "We're not changing it, even though it makes sense to. Go for it if you want." Which is ... less than ideal.
I'm also reticent to start making house rules on a spell by spell basis. Most of our "house rules," I think, have pretty much been to replace class features we've banned, in an effort to keep things pretty straight-forward and not require a lot of extra rules content searching for folks who want to play here.
I'd be inclined to a more blanket "use 'casting stat' when that's a limiter in a spell," but I also don't know how many other spells like this are around, so I'm not sure what making a blanket statement like that might do to spellcasting in LPF.
I'm going to let a few other folks chime in on this one.
I'm also reticent to start making house rules on a spell by spell basis. Most of our "house rules," I think, have pretty much been to replace class features we've banned, in an effort to keep things pretty straight-forward and not require a lot of extra rules content searching for folks who want to play here.
I'd be inclined to a more blanket "use 'casting stat' when that's a limiter in a spell," but I also don't know how many other spells like this are around, so I'm not sure what making a blanket statement like that might do to spellcasting in LPF.
I'm going to let a few other folks chime in on this one.
Commander_Fallout
First Post
Yeah, that's really the funny thing about it. There really aren't that many spells that would be affected by the change, because after the Advanced Player Guide came out, all of the spells that did use the caster stat for spell effects made certain to include that it wasn't limited to any one stat, because they knew that it wouldn't be beneficial to their new class to have a number of spells walled off to them because it utilizes a different stat (and they applied it to Sorcerers/Bards and Wizards/Witches as well).
EDIT: I was actually wrong on some things. Spiritual Weapon is the only cleric spell in core this applies to, and APG has one as well: Spiritual Ally, which is basically a beefier version of the same spell. Paizo's almost whimsical reasoning for this was that, instead of invalidating themselves by fixing the original spell, they would create another one like it because they liked the idea that there were some spells that only clerics would want to take. Except that they then put both spells in the Oracle's Ancestor spell list. Because reasons.
EDIT: I was actually wrong on some things. Spiritual Weapon is the only cleric spell in core this applies to, and APG has one as well: Spiritual Ally, which is basically a beefier version of the same spell. Paizo's almost whimsical reasoning for this was that, instead of invalidating themselves by fixing the original spell, they would create another one like it because they liked the idea that there were some spells that only clerics would want to take. Except that they then put both spells in the Oracle's Ancestor spell list. Because reasons.
Last edited:
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
I have a similar hesitancy as jkason. Our house rules have been, in general, limited to those things that make it difficult to maintain a level field in terms of wealth/equipment (the elimination of crafting) and to making housekeeping easier (the 100% buyback rule). We've also taken what steps we can to limit power-bloat, by limiting to Paizo publications and by looking over new sources as they come out and nixing certain sections if they seem unbalanced to us or don't fit the flavor (evil powers, guns/gunpowder).
Very rarely have we actually made something more powerful or less limited in scope, and we've deliberately steered clear of things like spell-by-spell editing because it starts us down a slippery slope and because, as jkason said, it creates more things for both players and judges to keep up with.
The fact that those two spells are sub-optimal for the class - and are automatically gained by the class - doesn't really change that philosophy for me. The game is full of such quirks and foibles (e.g. Sneak Attack vs Concealment, which limits a Rogue's ability to access what should be his best class ability in the environment that should be his natural habitat, unless he's picked up Darkvision or the Shadow Strike feat).
So, I'd say no to changing the casting stat for Spiritual Hammer/Spiritual Ally for Oracles.
Very rarely have we actually made something more powerful or less limited in scope, and we've deliberately steered clear of things like spell-by-spell editing because it starts us down a slippery slope and because, as jkason said, it creates more things for both players and judges to keep up with.
The fact that those two spells are sub-optimal for the class - and are automatically gained by the class - doesn't really change that philosophy for me. The game is full of such quirks and foibles (e.g. Sneak Attack vs Concealment, which limits a Rogue's ability to access what should be his best class ability in the environment that should be his natural habitat, unless he's picked up Darkvision or the Shadow Strike feat).
So, I'd say no to changing the casting stat for Spiritual Hammer/Spiritual Ally for Oracles.
perrinmiller
Adventurer
I vote yes, pretty much because it doesn't appear to be right (regardless what Pazio says) and it is pretty much House Rules that way in almost every game I have see it come up.
I don't think we have that many Oracles (maybe 2-3?) and once it is listed on the Wiki's House Rules there it is.
Spiritual Ally seems to muddy things a bit further, since that showed up in the same book that DID have the Oracle, so it's harder to argue that the language was just because a spontaneous divine caster didn't exist yet. And I just checked, and the Ancestor mystery was actually designed even later, for Ultimate Magic, when it's even harder to argue "never conceived of it" as a reason for the choices.
Does it seem like a weakness of the Ancestor mystery to have two spells that will have poorer attacks than would be likely from a cleric or inquisitor casting it? Absolutely yes, but like Mowgli says, subpar class options aren't exclusive to this. The fixed bonus spells from things like mysteries and bloodlines have always been a mixed bag. Just from some quick skimming of pfsrd:
What about that super-powerful bonus Tongues spell that Aberrant sorcerers get as their bonus 7th level? Imperious is stuck with greater age resistance for heck's sake. Infernal bloodline players get a super useful spell to ... protect them from Good-aligned attacks; super likely to get use in LPF where we don't run evil characters.
I'm not convinced shillelagh is especially useful with the Wood Weapon revelation. And how many animals do we really think Nature oracles are likely to awaken at 2,000gp a pop? They're fine fluff, but are identify, tongues, and legend lore really worth anything else you're getting from the Lore mystery?
Shall we comment on the charm / hold / dominate animal chain's utility for Animal domain clerics? The Healing domain sticks you with four spells you could already cast spontaneously, even though you're already empowering your heals so you wouldn't need as many.
This is probably sounding harsher than I mean it. I'm totally not trying to be. I'm honestly asking the questions, and pointing out that, if our argument is "spell on a bonus fixed list isn't all that useful for the class," then there's a lot of other, similarly not-awesome spells that folks get stuck with that might be worth re-considering.
For what it may or may not be worth: the ability to ignore fixed lists and their concomitant mixed bag is one of the big draws for the Ancient Lorekeeper archetype, as I understand it. You can qualify for it out of the box with an elf or half-elf, but can also get it via the Racial Heritage feat, which you can use with half-orcs, humans, and aasimar (using the Scion of Humanity alt racial).
Does it seem like a weakness of the Ancestor mystery to have two spells that will have poorer attacks than would be likely from a cleric or inquisitor casting it? Absolutely yes, but like Mowgli says, subpar class options aren't exclusive to this. The fixed bonus spells from things like mysteries and bloodlines have always been a mixed bag. Just from some quick skimming of pfsrd:
What about that super-powerful bonus Tongues spell that Aberrant sorcerers get as their bonus 7th level? Imperious is stuck with greater age resistance for heck's sake. Infernal bloodline players get a super useful spell to ... protect them from Good-aligned attacks; super likely to get use in LPF where we don't run evil characters.
I'm not convinced shillelagh is especially useful with the Wood Weapon revelation. And how many animals do we really think Nature oracles are likely to awaken at 2,000gp a pop? They're fine fluff, but are identify, tongues, and legend lore really worth anything else you're getting from the Lore mystery?
Shall we comment on the charm / hold / dominate animal chain's utility for Animal domain clerics? The Healing domain sticks you with four spells you could already cast spontaneously, even though you're already empowering your heals so you wouldn't need as many.
This is probably sounding harsher than I mean it. I'm totally not trying to be. I'm honestly asking the questions, and pointing out that, if our argument is "spell on a bonus fixed list isn't all that useful for the class," then there's a lot of other, similarly not-awesome spells that folks get stuck with that might be worth re-considering.
For what it may or may not be worth: the ability to ignore fixed lists and their concomitant mixed bag is one of the big draws for the Ancient Lorekeeper archetype, as I understand it. You can qualify for it out of the box with an elf or half-elf, but can also get it via the Racial Heritage feat, which you can use with half-orcs, humans, and aasimar (using the Scion of Humanity alt racial).
Aura
Explorer
I remember jkason mulling about the idea of simply using the primary casting stat in these spells as an idea, although seemed to sway away from it. I kinda liked that--covers other cases as well as some real oddballs, like WIS sorcerers and CON witches.
I find it a big galling Paizo took the time to say they were punting. Seems just as much could have been accomplished by saying nothing.
I find it a big galling Paizo took the time to say they were punting. Seems just as much could have been accomplished by saying nothing.
Did I? Heh, well, clearly I can be as inconsistent as any publisher I might critique, then, so a bit of my own medicine.
To be clear, personally I think things get a lot cleaner if things just turn into "primary casting stat" across the board when it comes to spell effects like this. My concerns here are more about implementing it for a shared playspace in ways that are fair, consistent, and easy to propagate to everyone. Most of our changes are to wide, often-used mechanics (no crafting, no guns, 100% buyback, no div/arc difference for spellcasting items), so getting everyone up to speed is relatively simple. We have some more specific bans / mods, though again, I think those were responses to other choices (we had to replace crafting class features with something comparable, for example).
That's where most of my current reticence comes from. I don't know the full spell lists well enough to say that a blanket "use your primary casting stat" doesn't make other spells more confusing / open weird loopholes. And, as I said, if our primary motivation is to bolster a fixed spell list, I think we may open things up to a lot of other fiddling that starts muddying play.
Not that I can't be swayed. I just haven't seen much to address my above thinking / concerns?
Like I said, I hope I don't come across as dismissive or hard-lined or anything. I'm just trying to be consistent with what I think the judge / LPF philosophy has been for this kind of thing in the past.
