Question Withdrawn

[Caliban]

It's really simple - it specifically refers to "prepared spells" and oracles don't don't have those. It's not a restrictive interpretation, its what the rules actually say.

You would need to change the actual text of the rules to do what you want. In a home game, the DM can easily do that. In Pathfinder Organized Play, they can't do case by case rulings because they are dealing with players from all over the world.

 

[Blue]

Isn't a trait of a "good" DM finding ways to say "yes" to the players? Taking an exclusive interpretation of every rule instead of an inclusive one seems to be the oposite of that.

The context of "say YES" is inside the game world. If a player wants their character to try something, go for a yes. It may be difficult, but don't dismiss it out of hand.

"Can I cut the stinger off the giant scorpion?" - by the strict rules, there's nothing that allows it so no. But say yes tells you to allow them to try it and make up how to determine if it succeeds and the consequences.

That's not the context for changing rules around. "I'm playing a sorcerer but can I have fighter HPs just because?" - you don't have to say yes.

 

[Celebrim]

Isn't a trait of a "good" DM finding ways to say "yes" to the players?

There is a rumor to that effect. The utility of that is debatable. In my experience, saying "yes" to a proposition and saying "yes" to rules-lawyering are to very different things with very different consequences. I say "yes" all the time, but I don't generally validate a player finding a loophole more than once, after which I thank him for finding the issue and tell him I'll be closing the loophole in the future.

But for some reason, people are fearing it being "over-powered", which I don't believe is warranted.

There is another older rumor that says you should never give a player an even break, because the player is inherently biased and will always argue for the most generous interpretation - making the rule narrow if it would hinder his character and broad if it would empower them.

 

[Blue]

Generally, a closer/more literal interpretation can help avoid issues where things interact oddly together, perhaps breaking the system or becoming overly powerful.

There are games that do this. For example 13th Age has a paladin talent that allows taking a cleric talent and it directs to find a good fit instead of the most literal interpretation. There are a few places it does that.

 

[Joshua029]

I don't think it's as simple as "that rule uses the word 'prepared' so you can't use it, even though everything else lines up". Take this example from the FAQ.

Sorcerer: Does a sorcerer with the sage bloodline (page 72) use her Int or Cha to determine uses per day of arcane bolt?

The sage sorcerer uses her Int to determine the number of daily uses of her bloodline powers, including arcane bolt. Therefore, whether arcane bolt lists Int or Cha, the sage sorcerer still uses her Int.
The bloodline power lists Cha because that's the standard terminology for sorcerer bloodlines (because all other sorcerers use Cha), and because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power, in which case it should be based on Cha (like other sorcerer bloodline powers) instead of Int.


In short, it says the terminology is for how the rule is USUALLY used, and that it may be tweaked by the archetype. I believe this shows my interpretation to match rules as intended. And as I said before, selecting a number of spells to be added to the Spells Known for a day would make said spells "prepared" but in the sense that an Arcanist prepares spells rather than how a Wizard or Cleric prepares spells.

You don't have to change any words for my interpretation.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think it's as simple as "that rule uses the word 'prepared' so you can't use it, even though everything else lines up". Take this example from the FAQ.

Sorcerer: Does a sorcerer with the sage bloodline (page 72) use her Int or Cha to determine uses per day of arcane bolt?

The sage sorcerer uses her Int to determine the number of daily uses of her bloodline powers, including arcane bolt. Therefore, whether arcane bolt lists Int or Cha, the sage sorcerer still uses her Int.
The bloodline power lists Cha because that's the standard terminology for sorcerer bloodlines (because all other sorcerers use Cha), and because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power, in which case it should be based on Cha (like other sorcerer bloodline powers) instead of Int.


In short, it says the terminology is for how the rule is USUALLY used, and that it may be tweaked by the archetype. I believe this shows my interpretation to match rules as intended. And as I said before, selecting a number of spells to be added to the Spells Known for a day would make said spells "prepared" but in the sense that an Arcanist prepares spells rather than how a Wizard or Cleric prepares spells.

You don't have to change any words for my interpretation.

Yes you do. The Sage Sorcerer archtype specifically allows the the sorcerer to use Int instead of Charisma for their abilities. The FAQ doesn't apply to your issue.

I gotta ask, why are you even asking here? If you are playing a home game, ask your DM. If you are playing Pathfinder Organized Play, ask on their official boards.

Nothing you get from us has any official weight.

 

[Joshua029]

I guess I have my answer. All rules questions regarding if two rules work together will be answered with a resounding "NO". Now that this point has been driven home I can stop pestering the internet with my questions.

 

[LordEntrails]

I guess I have my answer. All rules questions regarding if two rules work together will be answered with a resounding "NO". Now that this point has been driven home I can stop pestering the internet with my questions.

So what your saying is that the premise of your OP wasn't what you said said it was and now you are upset because you didn't get agreement to what you wanted?

If you remember, your OP asked why do people recommend restrictive rules interpretation? You got several very reasonable reasons as to why that happens.

But, apparently that wasn't the question you wanted an answer to. And now that you got an answer to the question you wanted to ask, and the answer wasn't what you wanted...

In the end, I guess I agree with you, why bother to ask? I mean, if you only want support for the answer you have already decided should be the right answer, then don't waste our time and yours by asking.

 

[Celebrim]

I guess I have my answer. All rules questions regarding if two rules work together will be answered with a resounding "NO". Now that this point has been driven home I can stop pestering the internet with my questions.

I feel sorry for your DM. I really do.

Did you think you could come here and get ammunition to browbeat your DM into granting you additional powers and abilities?

You aren't even asking questions that are particularly ambiguous. What you doing is asking why the rules can't be rewritten to make them work how you want them to work. And maybe they can, and maybe that would make an awesome house rule.

(Or maybe not. I'm not a Pathfinder expert by any means, but compare with the Arcane Archivist mystery of the Lore Oracle. Seems like the Pathfinder designers felt adding arcane spells to the Oracle's spells known would be a tremendous advantage considering how many restrictions that they piled on that combination. I suspect you know that, given how far you would have had to have looked to come up with the route you are wanting affirmation on.)

But in any event, it's certainly not our place to tell your DM what sort of house rules he or she should adopt, nor to give you ammunition for browbeating your DM into creating the rules that you want him to create. The rules work as written.

 

[aramis erak]

One more reason rules tend to be answeed narrowly - RPGs grew out of wargames, and us Grogs who did wargames first like rules precision; the narrowest answer is usually the most precise. The rule does what it says - no more, and no less.

It is, in some systems, readily advisable to treat the rules as an extensible framework; the D&D/Pathfinder line isn't so good for this, as the emphasis on organized play needs narrow constraints to keep the experience consistent.