Question Withdrawn

[Joshua029]

For nearly every rules question I post here on a topic I view to be at least somewhat ambiguous, the instant response is to take the narrowest, most exclusive interpretation of the rules.

Why is that?

This occurs mostly when one class' archetype borrows a feature from another class, and the rules don't perfectly correlate. Most often the response is that the archetype can't benefit anything that uses terminology that doesn't refer to its own class, regardless of how similar they are.

One such example, in Pathfinder the Oracle is a Spontaneous Divine spellcaster, but an archetype (Spirit Guide, choosing the Lore Spirit, using the Arcane Enlightenment Hex) which states,

"The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare."

People don't seem to have a problem with subbing in "Oracle" for "Shaman" in the rule, but they'll say that the Oracle can't benefit from this because the Oracle's spells aren't prepared.

I believe it is as (if not more) viable to assert that the rule does apply, and that the spells added are "prepared" similarly to how an Arcanist's spells are prepared, in that they are added to the list of spells known for the day, but not assigned to specific spell slots.

Is there any objective problem with the way I'm looking at this?

Is there any objective, rules-based reason why the responses to my questions are so narrow and exclusive in their interpretation?

 

[LordEntrails]

I can't surmise why others might reply in this type of manner, but I can tell you why I think they might;

To be restrictive is to minimize how much a broad interpretation might "break the rules". i.e. it would be easy to interpret something in a general or broad way and then later on realize that such an interpretation has major detrimental or balance problems. By making rulings restrictive, it's less likely that it wil have min/max or balancing issues.

 

[Joshua029]

Using my example of the Oracle archetype borrowing from the Shaman, how would my interpretation "break the rules" or cause balancing problems?

 

[Jhaelen]

To be restrictive is to minimize how much a broad interpretation might "break the rules". i.e. it would be easy to interpret something in a general or broad way and then later on realize that such an interpretation has major detrimental or balance problems. By making rulings restrictive, it's less likely that it wil have min/max or balancing issues.

Exactly. It's always safer to err on the side of caution.

Considering your example, I'm not in a position to give concrete advice since I'm not sufficiently familiar with Pathfinder or the classes you mention.

If you are confident you have a good grasp on the rules and potential side-effects that may result from interpreting the rules in a more lenient way, feel free to give it a try. Perhaps you could warn your players, that you reserve the right to reverse your decision at a later time should you find that it turns out to be problematic...

 

[Joshua029]

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.

In Pathfinder the Arcanist is a mostly spontaneous caster drawing spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. This class has an archetype which gives the Arcanist access to a few spells from another spell list (The spells from this archetype aren't generally questioned)

Likewise in Pathfinder the Oracle is a spontaneous caster who instead draws spells from the Cleric spell list. This class has the archetype in question which at most gives access to a few spells from another spell list.

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

 

[steenan]

It's not about this specific example, but a general approach.

The narrow interpretation is unlikely to unbalance things (assuming the system in itself is well thought-out). The generous interpretation may easily introduce unintended consequences and go against the game author's assumptions.

Thus, it may have sense to use generous interpretation with one's group (knowing in detail what's going on in this specific game, with these specific players), but no much use in internet discussions where information is extremely limited.



As for your specific example: spontaneous casters in Pathfinder have a very limited number of spells known. Because of that, learning additional spells is much more valuable for them than for casters who use preparation. This does not mean that what you want to do would break the game, but it is definitely more powerful than intended.

 

[MarkB]

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.

Some players will tend to ask for a lot more of these exceptions and changes than others. If you say "yes" to all of them, there's a danger of the latter players ending up with much less capable characters, simply because they went ahead and used the tools provided to them rather than asking for more.

Ultimately, it's always your choice - but at least, by pointing out the potential pitfalls of a more generous approach, people will have helped you to make that choice an informed decision.

 

[Jhaelen]

I won't claim that my interpretation of the recommendation to say "yes" is the (only) correct one, but I have a different view:

First of all, the recommendation isn't just to say "yes"; it's to say "yes, but..." or "yes, and...".
Second, a good DM won't say "yes" all the time, but will know when to say "yes" and when not.

As I recall it, the original scope of the recommendation was to prevent a session from grinding to a halt because of a bad roll. So, instead of saying "Sorry, you fail." you say "Well, you don't know exactly how you managed to do it, but you barely succeed. Unfortunately, you also ... <insert inconvenient complication>".
You can extend the recommendation to say "yes" to cover situations that don't actually require or allow a roll in order to reward a player having a really clever idea. I.e. you allow the idea to succeed because you feel that it will improve the game to ignore the actual rules in a particular, sufficiently dramatic situation.

To recap, the recommendation to say "yes" is intended to be applied if it results in a more satisfying and interesting game.

Now, what you're suggesting is going a step farther: Instead of ignoring the rules in a very specific, single instance during a game session, you suggest ignoring the rules to allow a general exception that can be applied in an unlimited number of future situations.
The question you should ask yourself is whether you believe that this will improve your game in the long run.

So, let's imagine you have a player with a single-class Fighter character. Now the player has the idea that his character should be able to cast a magic missile spell at will, because he made up a background story of his character being a failed apprentice, that inexplicably only ever succeeded in mastering this one spell. Naturally, the player suggests he should be able to do so without taking an appropriate feat or *gasp* multi-class.

Do you feel that this is a scenario that will improve your game?

Now, let's assume you're kind of impressed with the player's well-written back-story and want to reward him somehow. So, you're inclined to say "yes".
That _could_ be fine in theory, but you should take great care to make sure the player won't be able to exploit it unduly.

There's actually two very good reasons for that:
1) It wouldn't be fair to the other players who don't ask you to bend the rules to make their characters more powerful.
2) It might actually imbalance the game, especially if you carelessly follow the player's original suggestion.

So, what you might do is to say "yes, and...": E.g. you tell the player that his character can _attempt_ to cast a magic missile spell if under considerable stress, without any guarantee that it will actually work, and even if if does, there's likely to be some repercussions.
I.e. you're using the player's suggestion to turn a potentially overpowered and boring constant benefit into an opportunity to improve your game in a sufficiently dramatic situation.

As a concluding remark, I'd like to point out that there are RPG systems that allow the players a share in controlling the game world. But these systems have actual rules that define when and how players may take control, so you're playing the game as intended. Pathfinder, however isn't one of these systems.

 

[Joshua029]

I understand that a DM can't say yes to everything, but that's not what I was proposing, and it's not what I'm seeing here.My point was that at character creation, if a player wants to tweak a character's flavor with an archetype which does have some rules precedence, and it doesn't break the game it should be allowed, at least with a "yes, but there's also this restriction".

What I'm getting here is "Exclusion in all things. You can't do it because I can't be bothered to see if it actually over-powers the character or not."

Again going back to the example:

The Oracle is primarily a melee fighter, with utility and restoration magic, and a few spells which summon or augment weapons, at least until later levels where it can evoke walls of fire.

The Archetype in question removes that melee prowess, requiring the sacrifice of those Strength, Dex, and Constitution points to Intelligence to be able to cast the Sorcerer/Wizard Spells.

It's just turning a magically-enhanced melee character into a straight spellcaster, Needing two attributes to be high instead of the one required by Sorcerers or Wizards.

 

[Sunseeker]

Speed. Simplicity. Accuracy.

Lots of people are asking questions all the time. I can't write lengthy responses analyzing all the finer details and possible variant situations.
The fewer words I use, the easier it is to understand what I write. The more writing and more thinking I put into something, the more confusing it can become for people who don't follow my train of thought.
The shorter and briefer the answer, the more accurate it tends to be.

So you get short, exclusive answers, at least from me, because that is the easiest way for me to provide you an understandable, accurate response.