Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm not saying the RAW is wrong, I'm saying the place in the ARG is wrong when it claims to say the RAW is one thing, when it is not. The ARG is claiming the rule was already something. It was not, and it is still not. That is a mistake, pure and simple.
Matthew, how do you read the rule within one specific creature type as applying to other types? That's not misreading or fuzzy, that's changing the rule. Period.
The rule in question was not fuzzy. It was clear. It just wasn't what they wanted it to be. As a result, they decided to change it like they did many things. This is great, except they didn't actually get around to changing it. It got forgotten. That's really understandable as there were a ton of changes made.
They have the ability to further change these books. And there are a great many things in these books that need changing. This change would be a very easy one. These changes and the commitment to quality is what drew so many of us to them in the first place.
They are, however, unwilling to continue and make even simple fixes. They would rather let the books conflict with one another. Worse, they have an easy and frequently updated list of FAQs that they are misusing as errata.. and aren't willing to even do that. This is not the Paizo that I've lauded in the past, and it saddens me.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Requoted and clarified how this rule is used in Pathfinder. Just for clarity's sake.
Actually misquoted would be more accurate if this was taken to be the source of the rule.
There is nothing here that would alter the weapon proficiencies for '0-HD' creatures. And seeing as we're talking about 3rd edition where the ruling was that they GOT them, it should not be surprising.
The ARG lists all of these out, but then throws in weapon and armor proficiencies without any basis for doing so. As a matter of RAW, the ARG is wrong.
The ARG could have added such a rule (though the Bestiary would be the proper place for it), but it did not do so. Rather it referenced a rule that does not exist.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I agree with your ultimate conclusion, but your reasoning is still flawed. The rules certainly say that they eat/sleep/ and breathe as well as say that they get martial weapon proficiencies. They do all of this under TRAITS. Not racial traits, but the outsider traits (which even take the time to list this bit for native subtype within them).
You claim that racial traits are equivalent to outsider (type) traits. This doesn't seem to have any basis or support. You claim that Aasimar's don't get outsider traits because they have racial traits listed. Please LIST those outsider traits. One of those TRAITS is what you are railing against right now.
Your argument is not self-consistent.
You claim that by listing racial traits that traits from type are removed by omission. Then you want to pick and choose amongst them.
The problem here is the PATH, and given the name that Paizo chose for our game.. having the wrong path is doubly problematic.
Since Aasimar are noted to have a specific set of racial traits that do not include proficiencies, that meets that qualifier. Then when they wrote a book on advanced races, they said "Gee, maybe we should be a little bit more explicit about that rule since there may be some room for confusion" and they explicitly stated "...these race types are 0 Hit Dice creatures, which means that their (...) weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes". They laid out their rule of context into nice plain explicit English, and they did it in the book that made the most sense to do it in. They didn't change a rule that had existe previously in Pathfinder, they clearly spelled out a rule that was existent in context all along.
Your argument is flawed.
You claim that Aasimars (as an example) do not get the outsider weapon and armor proficiencies.. not because they are '0-Hit Dice' creatures, but rather only because of their bestiary entry (which your logic would also mean that they don't need to sleep/eat/or breath).
You then claim that there is a blanket rule for all 0-Hit dice creatures. Where would that rule be?
And certainly it was a change. When it was a change is up for debate, as it seems Paizo makes changes but doesn't tell anyone about them! They thought that they had made this change with the Bestiary, but really did not. They realized that people didn't seem to catch this hidden change, and put a reminder in the ARG for a rule they knew wasn't printed.
I'm not sure if there are reasons to look to avoid errata, but I would think that such improvements to the rules would be seen positively. Pathfinder made a good number of strides in the right direction, but has given up on that.. with a vengeance.
Which is a shame as there are a lot of areas that need it. Some that have needed it before Paizo, and others that Paizo caused in the slew of changes that they made for Pathfinder while blindly copying and pasting a lot from the SRD.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I would also like to point out--as I have done in other threads--that we do not and cannot reference the 3.5 FAQ on the Wizards of the Coast website. That document is not Open Game Content. While you are all free to debate the arguments and merits of that collection of document, we make our own decisions about Pathfinder.
Great, but you can't expect people to see changes that you don't make.
When you have rules that you know are not clear, then look to change the way you've written those rules.
Having unprinted or misprinted rules is just bad form. Electing to keep them when you could change them? Those aren't good decisions to make about Pathfinder.
Look, I'm not debating that Paizo can make Pathfinder rules, or that they want to remove the martial weapon proficiencies from the Aasimar, Tiefling, etc. I don't have any issue with it one way or the other.
The point is that the way they are handling the rules is becoming increasingly slipshod. And that's a real issue that transcends this minor one and makes it into something very troubling.
We can all agree that they dropped the ball on their change to Aasimars and the like in regards to weapon proficiencies. They even agree upon that. The ARG demonstrates what they want the rule to be, or thought that it already was. However they don't seem to want to be bothered to actually make it the case when they knew exactly what is causing the confusion. This is troubling because they are the people that can make those changes to improve our game.
The ARG does not say 'hey here's a change', rather it says 'this is the way it's been'. Except that's just not true.
You've quoted the ARG, but done so incorrectly and misrepresented what it says. You're missing the distinction there.
This reads with the bitterness of a player protesting a (perceived) nerf to his to his aasimar and tiefling PCs. That may not be the attitude you're trying to communicate, but it's what is coming across.
Don't have a horse in that race.
But I do like D&D. Very much so. Pathfinder drew me to it as it seemed as if it were trying to make 3rd edition right.
They made a number of wonderful fixes. But they have stopped doing that, and even when some easy ones are presented they are unwilling to address them. That saddens me, as I had hoped for more from them.
Paizo is a small company, it should be agile as a result. This unwillingness to issue errata as errata reduces the value of their product.
The 0-HD rule in the Bestiary is under the type humanoid. It is exceedingly clear. It applies to creatures of type (wait for it)... humanoid. It does NOT apply to plants. Why? Because they are not humanoid.
These rules were taken verbatim from 3rd edition. In 3rd edition, not only was there not such a rule.. but they expressly stated that the opposite was the case.
Can Paizo change this rule? Sure. In fact, I applaud them for doing so. It's the right call to make from a balance perspective. Even then I think that both the Aasimar and Tiefling are overpowered with the myriad of options available to them.
Now I will dig at Paizo for making a change and not telling anyone about it. They deserve that dig. Why? Because they KNEW it was not clear that they intended a change. Much like how monk flurry was supposed to be with two weapons, but then not even all of the devs (including Jason) were told that one!
The bestiary is what NEEDS to get the errata for this rule to be properly presented. I don't care what they rule one way or the other, but I do want the rules to be done right.
The ARG says that this rule is already the case and ergo a change was made from 3.5 to Pathfinder in this regard, but in all honesty it is not already the case. The Paizo devs may have decided to do so, but they never went through with it.
They certainly can issue errata. Many people on the 'other side' of you from this would be delighted were they to do so. They are begging the devs to do it. Why? Because it would improve the game to have a commitment to a better rule set.
Face it- this is a game. The rules for games need to be clear. Realizing that you have an unclear rule and NOT changing it is bad rule writing. Plain and simple.
I made these same complaints when WotC was guilty of doing this, and was happy to move over to Pathfinder as a result. Paizo had a nice history of quality and group of people that they brought together for this. It looked promising.
Lately however it looks played out, and I'm left hoping for the next to come along to deliver on the promise. Third edition holds a nice potential as a gaming system, but it is needlessly Byzantine with its rules, is confusing for no good reason, and in sloppy in too many places.
Funny my copy of the Advanced Race Guide says the following on that page:
The second difference is that all of these race types of 0-Hit Dice creatures, which means that their Hit Dice, base attack bonus, saving throw progression, skill points, class skills, and weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes.
Do we have different versions?
This is saying that it was already the rule, and the devs have said that this was not a new rule.
The generic rule that this happens to all 0-Hit Dice creatures does not exist. All you have is this referencing that such is the case.
DM Becket: Specific overrides general. The general rule is that creatures get the traits of their creature type. The specific rule is that 0HD creatures do not gain certain traits.
However, that specific rule is not published.
The ARG references and reminds you of that unpublished rule.
The issue people are having is that many of us gravitated to Pathfinder because it was cleaning up a lot of sloppy rules that WotC had accumulated over time with 3rd edition but they were unwilling to spend the time and effort to fix them.
It seems as if Paizo has decided to embrace that same mentality. And this is disappointing.
Perhaps another company will take over the d20 material and undertake the task. I know that I, for one, would be far more willing to shell out money for good fixes to bad rules, poor wordings, and ambiguous terms than I would be for some passing flavor of the week, words of power, guns, or the like.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
The rule got changed with the Pathfinder Bestiary, but it was not state as explicit as it could have been.
You mean the one line where it says that they don't have racial HD???
If so, then that's an understatement. They never got racial HD, but did get martial weapons.
Pathfinder made a number of great changes, and a number of changes that no one ever changed.. either because they didn't realized it had changed, or the rules didn't show them anything to change. That's understandable given the scope and the lack of a change list.
I'm sure that for each and every one that you guys discuss these changes, play with them, and get so used to them that you think these things have been clearly changed. But many have not. They become part of the rules learned at the table. Many learned there are correct, but many others are not and persist like bad colds there despite all efforts to get rid of them.
Now if you knew there was confusion on this, why not actually address it directly in the Bestiary? If the rule was for all '0HD' creatures, regardless of type, to not get proficiencies.. then change it as the general rule rather than have it under one specific type and leave text you knew was not clear to shore it up.
Is there something that is made worse if the core books are errata'd to be made more clear in places where you know they are not clear? There seems to be a strong resistance to doing this even in very clear places where the text needs it.
Please don't get me wrong. I thank you for explaining the process. I'm just highly disappointed in the process truth be told, but thank you for the explanation. When Pathfinder came out originally I was very hopeful that it would clean up a lot of the mess in the rules from which 3.5 suffered. It made a nice (or even great) start in places, but seems to have more than given up on that path, which is a tragic shame.
To us, the above is quite clear. It's okay if you don't think so though.
Well let's see, in 3.5 it said that they have the following racial traits... and it didn't list proficiency in martial weapons nor the need to sleep/breathe/etc.
They clearly never had racial Hit Dice. Which is what the first line is saying, and this is the only addition that Pathfinder made (beyond changing the class of the sample character from warrior to cleric).
Your argument would say that, in 3.5, they clearly didn't get martial weapon proficiency. Yet the designers at the time would disagree with you, and they expressly ruled that they did get martial weapon proficiency.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
So where did the rule from 3.5 get changed? That's what people have been looking for in this thread. The first claim was the Adv Race Guide, but that was just to clarify the change that had already been made (cause you don't seem to believe it could be a mistake). Now the second claim is that the one line in the bestiary about Aasimars not getting racial HD somehow claims this, but they never got racial HD and that's confusing traits and features.
It's not that hard, you guys get to print the books. If you want it to say something, then go out and say it. Errata is not an evil word.
Our desire here is for clear rules. They make for a better game. I've liked the majority of the changes Pathfinder has made to 3.5, but hiding those changes doesn't further the interests of the game. It just causes confusion. Rather than prance around with 'clarification', simply issue the errata and stop printing a general rule under a specific heading. The only logical conclusion a person should take from that is that you HAVEN'T changed the rules from 3.5 in this regard.
If you want the rules to be different, then print them differently.
Oh and you seem to have something in your eye.
Reason dictates that if you are standing in the cloud looking out, you have a hard time seeing out. The people on the other side of the cloud that can't see you are looking through the same amount of fog that you are. This is NOT how the spell works. When determining line of sight you start on the outside of the the square you are standing in, and in this case, outside of the fog. This means you can stand on the edge of the fog and reap the rewards without paying the penalties.
Depends on how you reason.
If you look to reason along the lines that wrote the cover and concealment rules, then you will think that the person in the square controls their own movement within that square.
When they need to peek out, they do so. When they hide within it, they do so.
That's why you need to draw lines to all corners of their square from only one of your own when making a ranged attack.
Frankly if we accept a turn based combat system with hit points, then we can't really draw the line here as being unreasonable.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I never said it changed the rule. I said it clarified the rule.
It reads to me as if it simply got the rule wrong.
But I'm curious if it's just a clarification then when did the rule change, and where?
And why, up to this day, do you still have the text in the Bestiary for these "0HD rules" in the humanoid type if they also apply elsewhere?
It doesn't make much sense.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.
Rules for games should be CLEAR. And when you change things, those changes should be highlighted.
As I read it, this is simply a case that the author got a rule wrong. It happens to everyone. And likely will happen in the future. When the mistake is not one that you want to accept, then you'll demand to know why we took it that way. Why set such a blurry precedent here?
As to the bestiary, perhaps you believed that the rule located within one creature type was meant to apply to others.. but why would anyone else make that leap?
Likewise, this is something that you inherited from prior editions, is it not? If you meant to change it with the change over to pathfinder, then you failed to do so. If you believed that it was different before, then you missed a rule... it happens.
The ARG states that 0-HD outsiders don't get armour/weapon proficiencies.
Actually, the ARG states that this was already the rule, rather than making it a new rule.
You have two possibilities here:
1. There is such a rule somewhere that we have yet to find.
2. The author was mistaken when he added weapon and armor proficiencies to the list of things that they do not get (HD, skill ranks, etc).
Da G8keepah wrote:
All of the class guides that I have read seem to agree that Obscuring Mist is a great spell. It is recommended very highly over most other spells.
It's a nice tactical spell that maintains its usefulness as you level.
Now the keyword is tactical and as such needs to be used when the time is right.
But it can be very nice to create some terrain when you need it. A wand of it is just as useful as the spell, and at 1st level becomes cheap very quickly.. as opposed to a 2nd level fog cloud.
The Advanced Race Guide has the text that Biz quoted. If that doesn't settle the question, nothing ever will.
Read the full text in the Advanced Race Guide. I even quoted more of it up thread if you don't have it handy.
The text is not making a new rule, but rather the author is stating that this is already the rule and is reminding the reader of it.
The problem is that author got this wrong as far as I can tell. Or has anyone found a source that contradicts the Bestiary entry for outsiders?
All you have is a place in a supplemental text where someone thought the rule was one thing, when it was another.
After all the devs here inherited a good amount of the rules from 3e, and they are human. They can make mistakes, or elect not to look at what they might consider minutiae.
Its been an open question for a long time.
What you want to avoid is having as a means to get personal spells onto other people, etc. This opens up a can of worms that you will wish to avoid in your adjudication of the spell.
Cute Kitty wrote:
I recently hit level 8
My advice: tell your DM that your character is going to a temple for training as a cleric, and ask him how long should you wait to come back and join the group.
Or simply say goodbye. It sounds as if he wants to play your character, so why do you need to be there?
Diego Rossi wrote:
@James: Weird word don't substitute inspire competence, that ability is replaced by Wordstrike, so saying that weird word replace both suggestion and inspire competence is false.
Great, so can I take Weird Words and not give up inspire competence? No?
Then you've really missed my point.
Also the fact on how utterly useless Wordstrike is.
But if you'd prefer that the Sound Striker also gains 'wordstrike'.. go for it.
But if you've elected to get Weird Words, then you've given up inspire competence, suggestion, and the ability to take almost any other Bard archetype.
These are costs.
It is not just suggestion, and should not be looked at that way. One can look at the Wizard bonded object vs familiar in such a fashion, but this is not the same... it has other things tied to it, and consequences of those choices.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
This means that the subpar "band aid" PrC's are now fairly good.
No it means that those PrCs are now insanely skewed towards certain races over others.
Not only is that not good design, but this is something that Paizo had said that it was purposefully moving away from!
I would rather see a useful revamp to those PrCs, than thrown together happenstance like this.
Actually I read it as
Advanced Race Guide wrote:
all of these race types are 0-Hit Dice creatures, which means that their Hit Dice, base attack bonus, saving throw progression, skill points, class skills, and weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes.
And this reads to me as if the writer of the passage simply got the rules wrong.
It certainly is not a change in the rules as it is written.
So, yes I certainly would be interested in seeing where in the core rules this rule is stated. All I can see is a wording dealing with those of the humanoid type.
All 0 HD creatures determine proficiencies and skill points by class, not by type.
Where would that be listed?
I see something along those lines in the Humanoid type for certain members of that type.
I don't see it in the outsider type, nor do I see it in the Aasimar entry.
You didn't use 'SR', but instead did spell out scorching ray.. which, like magic missile, hits simultaneously.
Now the counter is that energy resistance is applied for each ray in the scorching ray.
However, the wording on the metamagic is 'when a creature is damaged by the spell' and as such this only occurs at one time for these two spells.
Now for Melf's Acid Arrow or Wall of Fire, these spells damage each round and so could make victims need to save more than once.
Do you have any sort of documentation to support the idea that it wouldn't cause multiple saves?
Well it would be one SR roll, and not 5 rolls if the target had SR.
The magic missiles hit simultaneously, so why would you suspect that it would be 5 saves?
You can modify a spell to daze a creature damaged by the spell. When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell.
For a magic missile, there would be only one time where a creature would be damaged by that spell.
Hapless Mage wrote:
Talk to your DM about making all of those sorcerer level 1 powers usable at will rather than 3+cha mod.
Diego Rossi wrote:
It substitutes the ability to take any other Bard archetype for starters.
It substitutes having inspire courage or greatness active at the cost of a standard action.
And it also replaces both inspire competence and suggestion.
If you narrow down just on suggestion, then you are treating this as if it were just an option to swap out suggestion. It's not, as there are other costs associated to it.
You want this archetype to feel like it has something worth taking over other archetypes. If you err too much on caution, then you are better served simply removing the archetype entirely. Having trap options is something that I thought that Paizo didn't consider as a design goal (unlike say 3e). Meanwhile you don't want all the choices bland and linear (i.e. 4e).
It makes it more daunting.
So far we have the goal of the archetype is to have a magical and martial focus options as secondary backups for a martially oriented bard.
This archetype will need to compete against the more martial bard archetypes as a result.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
First, let's lay this out.
Build Cost: Loses inspire competence and suggestion.
Combat Cost: Standard action, ends other performances, and some amount of bardic music.
Next, let's look at the other ability tied to it.
3rd level ability: Word strike deals 1d4+blevel to object, and (1d4+blvl)/2 to creature. No range is listed (oversight). 1 round of performance and a standard action.
If we assume that the range is the standard 30feet, then this is not a strong ability. It is weaker than the near universally considered weak sorcerer level 1 powers in that it depletes a useful resource (performances) rather than the fixed 3+CHA. By the time the number of performances might not matter as much, the damage doesn't at all.
We can take this as part of the entry price for the second ability if desired. Otherwise this one should also be addressed. Dealing 2 damage at 3rd level, 4 damage at 6th, and 7 damage at 10th level is simply not on the radar for those levels.. even the lowest when hitting is harder to come by at times. Simply put, this ability is for flavor and for damaging objects. The fact that it can damage creatures is near irrelevant.
Now the ability itself, and my suggestion for it:
6th level ability: Weird Words. Here the flat 30ft is listed, making this well within close range (while close range spells are 40ft at 6th level). It is a standard action to use, and doesn't scale as other performances do. And it also ends other bardic performances.
You want something here that is essentially worthwhile to take and to do. Not only does the cost need to be reasonable, but also the use of the ability in combat must be worthwhile.
I suggest a single ranged touch attack dealing (bard level-4)d6+CHA sonic damage at the cost of one performance round.
Finally, a quick analysis of how it fits in with an example:
Now many things will depend on the CHA of the bard. The higher the CHA, the better this might be.. but then the less martial the bard could be elsewhere. And the bard would still need DEX and feats to augment the ranged touch attack. In the end this is mainly a wash.
Let us assume a 16CHA to start, 18CHA at 6th, and 20CHA at 10th. This would be a weapon finesse bard advancing DEX, and using a bow or this ability when feasible. Feats would be tight in that you'd need weapon finesse, PBS, and precise shot. Thus there wouldn't be much room for lingering performance, etc.
At 6th level, they'd have 17rounds of music. A good number of these would be earmarked for inspire courage.
At 6th, he could deal 2d6+4 damage (average 11) as a ranged touch attack. Possibly useful, but losing the bardsong would hurt for the others. If you have two other martial characters in the party, this could be felt, or even if you only had one big one. In the end, not really worth it except in near contrived situations or in parties with less martial power.
By 10th, you would deal 6d6+5 (average 26damage) which is still subpar for a 10th level character's action. At this point, he could also spend a move to start the bardsong up again. With 27 rounds of bardic performance, this is viable to do. But in all honesty, I'd burn through inspire greatness instead or pick up a masterpiece.
You might consider adding to this additional targets for additional bardic performances, but staggered by bard level. Either that or let it get quicker to use like other performances. I'd suggest the later.
Might as well make a longer list and do this fully out.
So when an archetype says, for example, replaces weapon training 1, it means it cannot be combined with an archetype that replaces/modifies weapon training 2. Is that correct?
Likewise one altering bonus feat 1 with another altering bonus feat 2, etc.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
Showing a complete archetype as done "in the class" is not practical with our current number of staff because of the amount of work needed to do so, even if it were only done online.
That's a shame, maybe d20pfsrd.com would do it. It seems as if it would make life a lot easier for a number of people that get confused by the current format of them.
Actually, I'm being exacting.
First, 'spells known' is NOT a class feature. That was the claim of the other poster.
Second, it is not part of the Spells class feature. Consider what Paizo has done with the sorcerer 'class features'. Look above, and you'll note 'Cantrips' which also references the table of 'Spells known'.
Thus, that table is not within ONE class feature. It is not a subset as you're purporting. Spells known extend beyond the Spells class feature.
Now, does RAW distinguish between 'spells known' and 'knowing spells'? Some on this thread have claimed a difference. Yet when you read the Spells class feature section of the sorcerer, they are used interchangeably in the printed text.
What this boils down to is that Paizo via Pathfinder added a slew of ways to get more spells known than the table allows. It is now a question of what should mean what. But spells known vs spells you know was never a division.. and frankly would follow a horrid tradition of bad names (e.g. caster level) if they did so via errata.
Of late Paizo has been making some sloppy rulings and FAQ entries. This one is no different.
As it stands, taking levels in a PrC does not advance Cantrips known. They are on the table of spells known, but they are not part of the spells class feature, rather they are their own class feature. Certainly this is not in keeping with how people have played it at tables, or what is intended by PrCs advancing spell casting.
But then the spirit of PrCs advancing spell casting is that you could not tell them apart from non-PrCs in regards to spell slots, casting level, or spells available.
The black raven wrote:
Which specific class feature would that be?
For sorcerers I see:
Weapon and Armor proficiency
Which one is it exactly?
And while you're reading the sorcerer section, notice how spells known and spells a sorcerer knows are used interchangeably.
At this point it is too weak an attack for too much of a cost.
Taking this archetype not only replaces suggestion, but denies other archetypes that also do so.
What is the end goal of this archetype?
Frankly it reminded me of the 3e bard that way.
But the abilities for the class seemed skewed either too good or too weak.
It still leaves unanswered what bonus feats the sohei can take.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
If one archetype modified the level 1 bloodline ability, and another archetype modified the level 9 bloodline ability...
Are you saying that both are 'altering the bloodline' and thus are not compatible?
Or do you treat them separately?
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
You don't do the minimum 1 for each die, but rather you do it all out and THEN do the minimum 1.
That is you do 4d6-8. Now some of these will go below 1, and you will need to look at a special rule for that which I believe Pathfinder changed from 3e.
Except what can we say on topic? You're not listening to our arguments
I heard them, but the plain text of the PrC goes against it. You wanted to split hairs on what 'known spells' had to be. It seemed as if you had decided upon a conclusion and were working to show it. Moreover, even the places where it spelled out that they were, in fact, known spells was an issue... which if your objection had been true, would not have been the case.
It boils down to the fact that Paizo has added a plethora of ways to add spells known for spontaneous casters.
Back in 3.5 there was perhaps a feat(?) that allowed an additional spell known, but I'm not 100% certain of this (there were magical items that allowed you to treat spells as known spells for that day). Meanwhile, in Pathfinder, there are lots and lots of ways (favored class bonuses, feats, class abilities, bloodline/mystery spells, etc) in which you exceed that table of known spells.
Some you contend are not 'known spells' but function as known spells, while others are expressly stated as such.
I'm fairly certain that there wasn't thought given over to how PrCs were worded in this regard.
The spirit of the spell advancement for these PrCs was, and reads, that they should cast spells just as if they hadn't multiclassed, but rather had continued in their base class. This expressly includes spells known.
Following this spirit, these extra spells known should be granted to those whose PrC advances casting.
Thus to me it seems, both in spirit and written word, as these spells known should advance. After all the wording is about what is advanced, not where it is being advanced.
If a class ability increased effective level of spellcasting say at 10th level, then a character going off to a PrC that advanced casting would qualify just as much as one who stayed in the class. It wouldn't matter under what class ability this increase occurred, just that it would occur if the character had leveled in the original class.
That's the wording. And here is our obligatory post on the actual subject for this page ;)
I'm curious, when was the last post actually talking about the subject?
Even with a myriad of 'bump' posts removed, it's still almost two pages of not talking about it.
Perhaps that is why it is not a priority for the FAQ?
If you are going with Archivist, then you want to know one thing about your version of inspire courage (named 'Naturalist'):
This language-dependent ability requires visual and audible components.
While naturalist is AWESOME. It will not work on animals/summons if they don't understand your language. It also will not work if they cannot see you (either invis, stealth, or blocked line of sight).
Depending on what feat playroom you have, I still love a level of dual-cursed Oracle of Lore for such a build.
Let's put it this way i had a wizard he got killed by a giant octopus
Then your party needs someone to deliver knowledge skills.
Also the bard's AC will be better than your old wizard's.
Beyond which.. who targets bards anyway? *wink*
A bard might be best since a bard can hide most verbal compenants of magic behind song or playing her instrument
Human Oracle1(Dual cursed)/Bard7(Animal Speaker)/Diabolist1
Traits: Irrepressible, Adopted: Halfling (Helpful)
Feats: Divine Scion, Extra Revelationsx2, Flagbearer, Spellsong, Antagonize
Oracle of Lore1: Lame and Legalistic
Character delivers knowledges, and face skills (via versatile performance).
The level of diabolist is up to taste, and you can go with bard8 instead easily enough.
I also suggest that, while an invisible enemy could literally stand right in front of your eyes and swing for the fences, a stealthy enemy has to be more sneaky, more subtle, and in doing so, once he begins his attack at you, he blows that sneaky subtlety and you can react. Or more accurately, you are not unable to react.
Seeing as you are objecting to when the attacker has full concealment and the target has no way to see the attacker, I'd say that this argument misses the mark dramatically.
By RAW, do evil spells make you evil? Like If I come across someone who is hurt (being lawful goood oracle), and use Infernal healing to heal them. Do I turn evil? (By RAW)
But if you are a good aligned cleric you can't cast it.
Also others might look at you poorly for it.
Casting [good] aligned spell doesn't make you good either.
Nor does casting a [fire] spell cause you to spontaneously burn...
they are denied their DEX baring uncanny dodge.
If you cannot react to an attack, then you are denied your DEX score.
It's really simple, and it's been there all along.
There are a ton of threads, one even where wraithstrike goes through and proves that it works by RAW.
You know it I believe as you were on that thread claiming that the sky had fallen. If I mistook you for someone else, then I apologize for the mixup.
Concealment does not grant sneak attack. Victim must be denied dex bonus or flanked. If either of those two criteria are not in effect, it doesn't how much concealment YOU have. To the exception of invisibility as it specifically says enemy opponents are denied their dex against you.
The victim cannot see the attacker, thus they are denied their DEX (baring uncanny dodge).