Someone help me out, please.
The online SRD for the Spellcraft skill reads, "If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again."
However, the magic section of the SRD has a section titled "Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook," which states that the wizard needs to make a particular Spellcraft check, and then "If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until he gains another rank in Spellcraft."
Now, I've re-read those entries numerous times, and I feel confident that they are both referring to learning a spell, not visually identifying a spell being cast or just preparing a spell from an unfamiliar spellbook. The only difference is that the magic section is talking about learning a spell with the intention of adding it to your spellbook, while the Spellcraft section just talks about learning the spell.
Is there a reason to learn a spell and not add it to your spellbook, or am I completely missing something? Are the two bits I've quoted talking about the same thing?
Are those contradictory rules both in the Pathfinder Core rulebook?
They are and my group has run into them too. Gaining levels in our game usually takes weeks or months punctuated by several months between adventures, so it's sort of an important issue.
Our ruling was that it took a new rank in spellcraft to learn a spell of your highest spell level. But if I 5th level wizard fails his spellcraft roll on a 1st level spell, we'll let him try again in a week. Provided, of course, that he shells out the money for a new scroll or whatever.
This obviously is not RAW since it seems to contradict itself but it is the solution we are using.
I think an official answer is required.
I know Riding Dog was replaced by Dog in the Summon Monster I list in errata so I'll go hunting for that sheet...
EDIT: Nothing...
Someone help me out, please.
The online SRD for the Spellcraft skill reads, "If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again."
However, the magic section of the SRD has a section titled "Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook," which states that the wizard needs to make a particular Spellcraft check, and then "If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until he gains another rank in Spellcraft."
I have read over them many times, and they do seem to be conflicting. So, I would simply use the, "which ever comes first" rule.
Keep it simple and avoid the arguments.
Windquake
I think it's a minor bug !!
"until he gains another rank in Spellcraft." was the rule in 3.5, the author seem to have forgotten to change this section of the rules
Just bumping this thread because I first started it Friday afternoon, when people were likely to be going home for the weekend. Last time I'll bump it.
Just one example of many rule problems, mistakes and contradictions that haven't been addressed since August, despite repeated requests from the community. All we have is just one meager 6 months old errata, that doesn't even scratch the surface, while the folks at Paizo are busy running contests and putting together advanced player's guides while the core game gets neglected.
Yeh, I'm pissed off.
|
Just one example of many rule problems, mistakes and contradictions that haven't been addressed since August, despite repeated requests from the community. All we have is just one meager 6 months old errata, that doesn't even scratch the surface, while the folks at Paizo are busy running contests and putting together advanced player's guides while the core game gets neglected.
Yeh, I'm pissed off.
Agreed. Very frustrating. Maybe a little less chatting with fans and talking about unimportant things on these boards and a little more umm posting errata or answering rules questions. Some really stupid random conversation gets posted all the while fairly important rules questions get ignored... for months... without even a "we're working on it" response.
A fan is only a fan so far. Then he decides to do something else.
|
|
I swear I'd have one or two interns doing nothing but responding to posts in the rules questions forum even if their response is "I talked to Jason yesterday about this. It's on his plate to look into. I (lowly intern) will keep you guys posted if he gets to it."
What else are the interns doing? Working on the contest?
|
I swear I'd have one or two interns doing nothing but responding to posts in the rules questions forum even if their response is "I talked to Jason yesterday about this. It's on his plate to look into. I (lowly intern) will keep you guys posted if he gets to it."
What else are the interns doing? Working on the contest?
You are awful generous with other people's money and time.
The interns are likely editing the huge backlog of work which Paizo managed to accumulate trying to get the unprecedented amount of product out the door.
Maybe you missed that several of their product lines are months behind schedule? They are focused on getting their products out the door that they committed to produce to subscribers.
I am not suggesting errata isn't important, but can we please get a grip here. There is nothing in the game system which is so broken it interferes with running the game. This rule and many like it can be run either way and it won't seriously affect game play. Can we please be a little patient and let Paizo get their trains back on the tracks?
FWIW, Erik's stated that a third printing of the book is coming shortly and when they release the third printing they are doing another big errata update.
That's all true Dennis, but I think what is getting to people is that there is no response OF ANY KIND ("OK, we're too busy to say what the answer will be, but this will be in the Errata...") while we still see plenty of "banter" posts from Paizo staff. Posting a quick "We're aware of it, it will be dealt with" post takes <30 seconds. Coherently summarizing the issue, and researching the rules to make sure you're not actually just over-looking something takes time for the fans who do this right? Not having ANY feedback whatsoever when they go to this trouble seriously draws into question whether this effort is appreciated by Paizo, or if they should give up on contributing THEIR OWN free labor to help Paizo fix bugs.
|
If one pays close attention, one would notice that many questions on this forum are answered by Paizo staff, even if in an "unofficial" capacity. This leads me to believe that they don't specifically post in some of them because they know it's a "hot button" issue with no clear-cut answer (more so for the Trip Weapons thread than this one, but still), so they don't want to touch it until they get it right. This might even include some in-house playtesting or anaylsis that would take a not-insubstantial ammount of time. If they ignore this thread and post a more broad "3rd printing is coming and along with it errata", it would in the long run be better than having 3-4 Paizo people posting 3-4 answers only to have them all be overruled when the official errata is released.
In the meantime, errata is coming, and coming soon. No need to get short with people who work so hard so we can keep on enjoying our niche hobby.
And it's not like there's actually a contradiction here, either. You must wait at least a week and you must gain a rank in Spellcraft. Where's the contradiction?
And it's not like there's actually a contradiction here, either. You must wait at least a week and you must gain a rank in Spellcraft. Where's the contradiction?
I don't see where it says both of those qualifiers together. It says to wait a week in the Spellcraft skill description, and it says that another rank in Spellcraft is necessary over in the Magic chapter (both linked to in my original post).
Yes, you could interpret the rules as saying that both of those qualifiers are necessary, but it's an odd way to put a rule in the Handbook (with two parts of the rule being in completely different sections), so I'm having a hard time swallowing that interpretation.
Does it really matter that much? pick the one that you like better and use it, if errata comes out later in favor of the other one it is not like you are going to have to recreate all of the wizards in your game or anything, just start using the errata from that point on (or not if you think the way you've been doing it is working just fine). It is certainly nothing to rail against the powers-that-be about.
|
|
Agreed. Very frustrating. Maybe a little less chatting with fans and talking about unimportant things on these boards and a little more umm posting errata or answering rules questions. Some really stupid random conversation gets posted all the while fairly important rules questions get ignored... for months... without even a "we're working on it" response.
They talk about the delay and give a general idea of when to expect the errata on the "Pathfinder RPG Errata needs an update" thread. You've actually posted on that thread and some of that was in reply to you so I'm not sure what you mean by without even a "we're working on it" response because they say exactly that and more in quite a bit of detail.
I believe that since I believe the "wait a week" was added, that it is supposed to be the "correct" rule to use.
But, I would probably use "wait a week or until you gain a new rank in Spellcraft whichever comes first".
That way if I got into the situation that the characters in my game have gained three levels in one week, they wouldn't have to spend six sessions unable to try to read the scroll again.
-
As for the demands for rules clarifications, well, I'm sorry that you feel that way.
I would say that they are currently working on (the RPG Superstar contest, the Advanced Player's Guide, and all of their other products that need their attention) the are important as, if not important than errata or figuring out clarifications. Pushing them back would be much more problematic than pushing back errata to when they need a new revision.
I believe that there are responses to these issues in the thread Ogre linked. Hopefully one might be able to be satisfied with them.
Errata is work. Boards banter is recreation. Expecting people to spend their off hours and break time on work instead of recreation is unreasonable.
New books make money. Errata does not make money. Expecting a company with bills to pay to prioritize work that makes no money over work that generates income is also unreasonable.
Errata is work. Boards banter is recreation. Expecting people to spend their off hours and break time on work instead of recreation is unreasonable.
New books make money. Errata does not make money. Expecting a company with bills to pay to prioritize work that makes no money over work that generates income is also unreasonable.
What about losing current customers who feel the game they invested so much money on is not supported properly? Does that generate money?
How come other companies (smaller than Paizo) manage to release errata promptly while still making new products?
|
|
If you really think that not answering if a new spell can be written into a spellbook over a week's wait vs gaining a rank in Spellcraft is being "not supported properly", as opposed to, you know, support in the form of new adventures, adventure paths, core rulebooks, sourcebooks, campaign setting material, etc etc, then by all means, spend your money on these wonderous smaller companies you mention (but not by name).
Personally, I think they can do without some customers' money and "support"....
If you really think that not answering if a new spell can be written into a spellbook over a week's wait vs gaining a rank in Spellcraft is being "not supported properly"
There are literally hundreds of similar threads regarding different rule topics that has gone unanswered for over half a year now. We are not talking about one thread, and I'm sure you know it very well.
Not really wanting to highjack the thread but "customers" that need to be taken by the hand and told everything they can do because they can't think for themselves is why microwave ovens have warnings not to put pets in them. And "customers" that demand a company bend over backwards for them are to selfish to understand broader aspects of running a business.
That of course is a personal opinion.
|
|
There are literally hundreds of similar threads regarding different rule topics that has gone unanswered for over half a year now. We are not talking about one thread, and I'm sure you know it very well.
Hundreds? Hundreds? Really? All asking different questions, no overlap or redundancy, and not a single one of these has been addressed by anyone from Paizo?
I think you exagerate a bit.
Likewise, I'm sure YOU know very well that Mr Jacobs has flat-out said that errata is coming in the next week or so.
|
|
@encorus: Did you read the thread I linked above? Sean and James talk about why the errata is delayed there and you are more likely to get an answer you your question if you reply in that thread which is talking about this specific issue.
The third printing of the book is going to be out... soon. When it's finalized the new errata will be released.
What about losing current customers who feel the game they invested so much money on is not supported properly? Does that generate money?
I'll flip that. Is it fair to Paizo's subscribers that they divert their efforts from long promised subscription obligations to produce rules updates for issues which GMs have worked around for years?
Hmm, lets see here. A vocal minority of rules errata lovers versus the customers who have subscribed to their APs and kept their company afloat for the past 2 years. Hmm...
Seems like an easy choice to me.
Paizo has an obligation to support their product but it isn't an urgent thing, if it's released in a week or a month or even three months it won't make a significant difference at anyone's gaming table. Maybe I'm wrong, have you seen some any errata issues which can't be worked around fairly easily?
@encorus: Did you read the thread I linked above? Sean and James talk about why the errata is delayed there and you are more likely to get an answer you your question if you reply in that thread which is talking about this specific issue.
The third printing of the book is going to be out... soon. When it's finalized the new errata will be released.
I was familiar with that thread (posted several times on it myself) but wasn't aware that it was updated recently with replies from both Jason and Sean that are really encouraging. Thanks for pointing it out!
Does the source matter ? For example, my wizard comes across a scroll in a treasure. He fails to learn the spell from the scroll. Later, he encounters another wizard, and they exchange spells. Does his earlier failure to learn the spell from the scroll preclude him from learning it from this wizard ?
Kids! This is where the GM earns his Oreos! Old Man Johnson moved the oil drum we were using for third base? No problem! Jessie! Use your bike instead. The SRD isn't being up dated from input. The GM makes the call with...both.
Ideally, the in-progress SRD would allow us to flag ideas onto certain rules for consideration until the rules-nazi carved them into stone. We did this with 3x5s and paper clips back in the day, only the professors got to actually WRITE on printouts. Just an idea Eric and Co.
If a Wizard found a Scroll in a treasure hoard or purchased it from another Wizard he would get his initial attempt to write it into his own spellbook.
Should he fail he cannot use that same source to try again, but if he found a different Wizard or even a Sorceror (or even a Bard) that had the same spell on their lists and created a scroll which later ended up in the Wizards hands, he could try and write that newer version into his spellbook instead. Should be fail again, then he will need to find another source - the old 'you need to gain a rank in spellcraft' bit is a throwback to early 3.5, it doesnt realistically apply in PF.