I remember one of the Paizo staff stating that there will be a set of guidelines for adding new spells to the new classes spell lists.
Me and my friend (who's subscribed) looked all throughout his PDF copy to find where those guidelines were in the book.
We didn't find it and are highly disappointed. The task of adding new spells to the spell lists has become daunting, now, without a clear guideline on exactly what types of spells should be considering when adding them to the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, and Witch. Considering the randomness of spell types tacked onto these spell lists, we're not sure what can be judged properly to belong and which isn't. We have Spell Compendium, Complete Book of Eldritch Might, along with several other WotC books with spells not appearing in the PHB or Spell Compendium, that we have to pour through to begin adding spells.
Unless it is in the book and we're missing it somewhere. Someone please tell us where, and if not, can the Paizo staff give us some ideas please? Thanks.
Maybe they reserved that part for Ultimate Magic so they could stuff more in the APG. Would make sense.
Well something like that would only take a page to aid, maybe a little less. I just don't like how it was promised and then cut for no good reason when it's clearly necessary considering a lot of us use 3.5 books to work with Pathfinder.
Well something like that would only take a page to aid, maybe a little less. I just don't like how it was promised and then cut for no good reason when it's clearly necessary considering a lot of us use 3.5 books to work with Pathfinder.
I agree.
But, honestly, better no guidelines than the old good bad guidelines (tm) that came with most WotC products.
Creative Director
|
I remember one of the Paizo staff stating that there will be a set of guidelines for adding new spells to the new classes spell lists.
Me and my friend (who's subscribed) looked all throughout his PDF copy to find where those guidelines were in the book.
We didn't find it and are highly disappointed. The task of adding new spells to the spell lists has become daunting, now, without a clear guideline on exactly what types of spells should be considering when adding them to the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, and Witch. Considering the randomness of spell types tacked onto these spell lists, we're not sure what can be judged properly to belong and which isn't. We have Spell Compendium, Complete Book of Eldritch Might, along with several other WotC books with spells not appearing in the PHB or Spell Compendium, that we have to pour through to begin adding spells.
Unless it is in the book and we're missing it somewhere. Someone please tell us where, and if not, can the Paizo staff give us some ideas please? Thanks.
What you remember was not as much a promise but an idea; we considered putting guidelines like that into the APG but there was simply no room. Of course, you can look at the spell lists and make pretty educated guesses about the types of spells that would make sense to add to the new spell lists, and we DID incorporate all of the core spells into their spell lists. And going forward, when we create new spells, we'll be adding them to these new base classes as appropriate.
In any event, it's not "random" which spells can go to which class. Neither is there a formula. It's something that each GM will basically need to decide for himself if he wants to add to a spell list if you're using something like the Spell Compendium... I'm not sure how guidelines that would have basically said "conjuration spells are a good choice to add to a summoner's list, and necromancy and enchantment spells feel good on a witch list," would have really saved much time for GMs who want to expand the spell lists, though...
I'm not sure how guidelines that would have basically said "conjuration spells are a good choice to add to a summoner's list, and necromancy and enchantment spells feel good on a witch list," would have really saved much time for GMs who...
One of the main arguments AGAINST providing the APG classes with a mechanic to expand their spell list was that this was NOT a valid approach to their spell lists.
Definitely disappointing.
Disappointing indeed.
I believe Jason mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm 99% sure that all of the new base classes with unique spell lists will all come with sidebars that talk about those spell lists and give advice on when you as the GM should expand those spell lists when a new product comes out that reveals new spells.
It's certainly something we're thinking about and we'll do SOMETHING to account for the fact that folks will want to expand those spell lists.
This is why, for example, you see bards getting spells like confusion as 3rd level spells instead of 4th level. While the bard's spell level is lower, he's still the same character level (7th) as a wizard when he gets the ability to cast the spell.
Spell lists are staying for some of the classes as a result. It's our responsibility to show GMs how to expand them if they want, just as it's our responsibility to periodically support them with new spells.
I'm not entirely sure what the OP is asking in this regard...Razz, were you hoping to see guidelines for adapting older WotC splatbook spells? If thats the case then you have to realize that those lists, spells and what-not are most likely closed content and couldn't be used in a Paizo book without express permission. Considering the state of the GSL, I doubt thats likely.
I would suggest that its not just looking at the schools of spell thats important for a GM to adding spells to the lists though. You not only need to look at spell schools, but you also need to decide on the theme of the class and the types of spells they currently have. Usually from there you can make a rather educated decision as to what spells should be added to the spell lists.
I have to agree with James that guidelines of this sort really wouldn't have helped much, or at least not me. I make such adjustments as I see fit to work with my personal vision of the world the characters are playing in.
Some GMs might have their Witches geared more towards binding/summoning spells, others might focus more on natural druidic spells. As the GM you have to make these decisions for your games. That might not be helpful to some, but I really don't see any way to make guidelines that will make the process simpler.
|
Oh no, DMs have to think for themselves on how to add spells to spell lists, the horror! :) In all seriousness, not that big of a deal, just a little extra work on your part. You don't need hard and fast rules for EVERYTHING. Talk with your DM/Players about what spells they want added, and if it makes sense to YOU go for it. I fail to see this being a big deal. One man's opinion.
Does one really need a rule printed for each and every contingency of absolutely anything that might happen, a player might request, or a DM might have to do? I say use common sense, roll some dice, and make stuff up. I'd rather not have to look up rule X on page Y in book Z each time my players ask me something. I'd rather say "i'm ruling X for now, we'll look at it after the game, and see how it differs, and i'll decide on which rule i'll use" for the sake of just getting on with the game. I don't mind doing the extra work, so long as it doesn't impede or interrupt the game.
Does one really need a rule printed for each and every contingency of absolutely anything that might happen, a player might request, or a DM might have to do? I say use common sense, roll some dice, and make stuff up. I'd rather not have to look up rule X on page Y in book Z each time my players ask me something. I'd rather say "i'm ruling X for now, we'll look at it after the game, and see how it differs, and i'll decide on which rule i'll use" for the sake of just getting on with the game. I don't mind doing the extra work, so long as it doesn't impede or interrupt the game.
+1 :) Emphasis Mine. ;)
Does one really need a rule printed for each and every contingency of absolutely anything that might happen, a player might request, or a DM might have to do? I say use common sense, roll some dice, and make stuff up. I'd rather not have to look up rule X on page Y in book Z each time my players ask me something. I'd rather say "i'm ruling X for now, we'll look at it after the game, and see how it differs, and i'll decide on which rule i'll use" for the sake of just getting on with the game. I don't mind doing the extra work, so long as it doesn't impede or interrupt the game.+1 :) Emphasis Mine. ;)
Though I started with 3.0, it turns out I'm "old school" in the way I DM, lol..
Does one really need a rule printed for each and every contingency of absolutely anything that might happen, a player might request, or a DM might have to do? I say use common sense, roll some dice, and make stuff up.
Thank You, Slatz, for saying this for me. These games are designed for people who can be creative and make their own judgements. Needing a printed rule for everything turns us all into sheep ... and the good people at Paizo are already pulling far more than their share of the load; piling on the added role of ovinomancer takes it a bit too far. Trust yourselves; trust your fellow gamers; trust your gaming group. You are capable of making your own decisions.
(stepping off the Suds of Dis box now)
...but if youre using spells from 3.5 alongside Pathfinder? That's one HELL of a lot of spells man.
And I'm just talking the spells from WOTC books alone. If you add 3rd party stuff from Green Ronin, Necromancer Games and a host of others that's just an EPIC amount of resources to sift through to decide who gets what spells.
Of Course youre not going to do this all at once, but still some guidelines for people still using stuff from 3.5 WOULD have been REALLY helpful.
That's all I think Razz is trying to say.
Ok people,
The OP was not asking for detailed rules. He was asking for a paragraph of insight and discussion from the devs on each class and how to adjudicate adding in spells from old source material.
The fact the devs said they were going to try to put it in, and then didn't have room for it, says this was something the devs thought would be good, but they didn't have the time/space/etc for it.
Stop giving the guy grief. He didn't ask for a list of what old WoTC spells should be on each class, he asked for some insight into how the devs decided what spells went with each new class. I don't think that's unreasonable at all, and I find all the gang piling on the guy to be a little sickening honestly.
|
|
Ok people,
The OP was not asking for detailed rules. He was asking for a paragraph of insight and discussion from the devs on each class and how to adjudicate adding in spells from old source material.The fact the devs said they were going to try to put it in, and then didn't have room for it, says this was something the devs thought would be good, but they didn't have the time/space/etc for it.
Stop giving the guy grief. He didn't ask for a list of what old WoTC spells should be on each class, he asked for some insight into how the devs decided what spells went with each new class. I don't think that's unreasonable at all, and I find all the gang piling on the guy to be a little sickening honestly.
Whose giving him grief? All I'm doing is stating my opinion that you do not need rules, nor even guidelines, for everything; this included. Sit down and discuss, if you feel a spell fits thematically, run with it, if not, don't. Its that simple. That is how I imagine the devs went about deciding what went on the spell lists in the first place.
The devs said it MIGHT be in there, even it was posted at 99% certanity, thats not 100%. Obviously they felt it either a) wasn't needed to be included, b) they ran out of room filling all the rest of the awesome in there, or c) some unknown kept it out. It happens.
Whose giving him grief?
Let's see...
Etc.
That's just pointless antagonism that was wholly unwarranted and entirely out of proportion with the original post.
And seriously, if I have to point that out, you know there's something wrong.
There's no crushing need to add that many spells to the spell lists and if you were looking to convert 3.5 splats, Paizo's forbidden from even mentioning that material lest they want to risk a Siembada type lawsuit.
I'm pretty sure that Paizo uses 3rd party materials in their AP's. Some of the mosters have templates from various 3rd party publishers, hell some of the monsters are from 3rd party publishers. One of the big selling points of the Pathfinder RPG was backwards compatibility with 3.5.
Razz was looking for guidelines from the developers to facilitate his effort for his own game. I'm not saying that they owe him and others anything. But it was something that they mentioned they'd might be able to do and obviously he was looking forward to that input. Honestly, I'm as big of a Paizo booster that you're ever going to find, but I can't fault Razz his disappointment here.
EDIT: I also dont think that he (Razz) was asking for a codified list of specific spells. He was asking for a GUIDE. So the argument that even mentioning closed content spells by name is a little off track here I think.
|
Creative Director
|
Disappointing indeed.
I believe Jason mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm 99% sure that all of the new base classes with unique spell lists will all come with sidebars that talk about those spell lists and give advice on when you as the GM should expand those spell lists when a new product comes out that reveals new spells.
It's certainly something we're thinking about and we'll do SOMETHING to account for the fact that folks will want to expand those spell lists.
This is why, for example, you see bards getting spells like confusion as 3rd level spells instead of 4th level. While the bard's spell level is lower, he's still the same character level (7th) as a wizard when he gets the ability to cast the spell.
Spell lists are staying for some of the classes as a result. It's our responsibility to show GMs how to expand them if they want, just as it's our responsibility to periodically support them with new spells.
I guess this is where I point out that I didn't say 100% sure. (shrug)
Also, it's important to keep in mind that, despite the fact that we're pretty open about our plans for books and do open playtests, we don't always adhere to our own plans. That's just something folks need to keep in mind; things ALWAYS change between the idea stage and the printing stage.
One thing I did like about WotC splats was the web enhancements - when something got cut for space from a printed book, or was a little too niche for the amount of room it would need, they gave it out as a free PDF add on. Something like this would make an excellent web enhancement.
Of course, then you'd have to put someone on polishing up a cut piece enough for that, so I can see the arguments against.
To clear things up, yes, I was looking for some pretty hardcore guidelines. Not specific spells. I'm willing to do with drudgery work involved in taking all the non-SRD spells and plugging them onto the new spellcasting classes (as I've struggled to do with Hexblade, Duskblade, Healer, and several other WotC classes), I just would love to know what to really look for when considering what spells to add to the lists.
To say "Look at their spell lists as a guide" doesn't help at all. I see spells on there lists that make no sense, others that do but I don't see other thematic spells that "appears" it should belong on their list there either. For example, the Witch's spells that were taken off, half of them looked like good themes for a "Witch-like" spell, but they were taken off. Why? I'd like to know, it sure would help in figuring out what new spells to add to their lists.
This was why, during playtest, I heavily argued NOT giving UNIQUE spell lists to spellcasters for this very purpose. The Spellthief class, for example, lists specific schools of magic they have access to. The Vigilante prestige class from Complete Adventurer lists specific schools of magic to choose spells from, and specifically from the Bard spell list. It'd have been easier to state "Summoners have access to Abjuration, Conjuration, and Transmutation from the Sor/Wiz spell list" spells only, for example, or "Access to close spells, force, fire spells, etc. from Cleric and Druid list", etc., for some other spellcasting class.
I can see the reason for Unique spell lists, but that should only be a last resort.
I'll learn to deal with it for now, it just would've made my arduous task at assigning these spells a LOT easier. Now I really have to scrutinize, maybe I might start a thread on the Homebrew forum to aid me in this task.
The Guidelines ARE there in the spell lists as they are. They pretty much are benchmarks as to what kind of spells should be present, in particularly classes like the Witch and the Summoner which are supposed to be limited in thier spell knowledge, as well as the semi-casters like the Paladin and Ranger.There's no crushing need to add that many spells to the spell lists and if you were looking to convert 3.5 splats, Paizo's forbidden from even mentioning that material lest they want to risk a Siembada type lawsuit.
Which befuddles me entirely, considering it's kind like free promotion to WotC's products to do so. It'd actually AID WotC instead of harming their business. I don't get what legalities involved would prove it'd harm WotC's business. Asking for permission like Sword&Sorcery did with Tome of Horrors would be sweet.
|
|
Whose giving him grief?Let's see...
Implying that the OP was unable to think for himself.
Implying that the OP's request was entirely unreasonable because it would force them to look up "rule X on page Y in book Z each time my players ask me something".
Stating that basic guidelines turn "us" into sheep. Etc.
That's just pointless antagonism that was wholly unwarranted and entirely out of proportion with the original post.
And seriously, if I have to point that out, you know there's something wrong.
For the love of god, thanks for putting words into my mouth. I said NONE of the things you listed, nor did I mean them. I would ask you to not attribute things I did NOT say to me, thank you. All I said was why I didnt think it was a big deal, THAT IS ALL. You are implying that I meant those things, im sure there is a name for the logical fallacy you are using but I couldnt name it. Basically just because I said one thing, it DOES NOT imply I think the opposite is true. The world isnt black and white, there are shades of grey in the middle.
When I have to start pointing out that you are implying I said and/or meant things I did NOT say, you know there's something wrong.
For the love of god, thanks for putting words into my mouth. I said NONE of the things you listed, nor did I mean them.
1. It's you who is putting words in my mouth, not the other way around. You asked a question, I answered. I did not say that you said any of that.
2. On the other hand, the first IS referencing your post which you started by saying, and I quote, "Oh no, DMs have to think for themselves on how to add spells to spell lists, the horror!". Yes, you followed it with a smiley. Smileys don't remove snark.3. The other two points were referencing posts by other posters, not you. You specifically asked "who was giving him grief", and I gave examples of the grief being given. Again, I never attributed it to you. Hell, one of them directly quoted a different poster.
Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you. Not everything I post is about you. Please try not to act like you're the center of the universe and everything I say in response to a question you asked is an aspersion on your honor.
|
|
For the love of god, thanks for putting words into my mouth. I said NONE of the things you listed, nor did I mean them.1. It's you who is putting words in my mouth, not the other way around. You asked a question, I answered. I did not say that you said any of that.
3. The other two points were referencing posts by other posters, not you. You specifically asked "who was giving him grief", and I gave examples of the grief being given. Again, I never attributed it to you. Hell, one of them directly quoted a different poster.
You quoted me, thats is specifically pointing me out. Thats is putting the words right into my mouth. Sorry, but thats what you did. NO duh the world doesnt revolve around me, once again, putting words into my mouth. Please try not act like you are god gift to posting, and twist things around using faulty logic to get your way.
You two get a room. This thread isn't about which one of you can fill up a urine sample cup the fastest.
I'd love to see designer notes about why certain spells were put on certain lists. I've done a couple of custom spell lists, and I always had a theme in mind. That doesn't, however, mean that theme was obvious to anyone other than me.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
You two get a room. This thread isn't about which one of you can fill up a urine sample cup the fastest.
I'd love to see designer notes about why certain spells were put on certain lists. I've done a couple of custom spell lists, and I always had a theme in mind. That doesn't, however, mean that theme was obvious to anyone other than me.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
If these boards had private messaging it would keep stuff like this off the forums, no where else to take this really.
You quoted me, thats is specifically pointing me out.
I quoted your question, and only your question. That's not pointing you out and putting words in your mouth, that's providing a frame of reference for my post.
Stop trying to win, both of you. You only look retarded.
One reason why I've mostly stopped arguing with people on here. I just state my opinion, and when they resort to name calling, I just ignore them from that point on in the thread.
EDIT: Snip. Forgiving and forgetting.
It happens when you have possibly the worst day of your life, gets you snarky.
Fair enough. I'm willing to forgive and forget if you are. I've had awful days when I've said stuff I probably wouldn't have if I was in a different frame of mind, myself, so I know at least in general where you're coming from.
|
|
It happens when you have possibly the worst day of your life, gets you snarky.Fair enough. I'm willing to forgive and forget if you are. I've had awful days when I've said stuff I probably wouldn't have if I was in a different frame of mind, myself, so I know at least in general where you're coming from.
Your a big man, I respect that. Yeah, already reading back and seeing how big of a jerk I was. I absolutely, 100% apologize for my behavior, Zurai, I was completely out of line, and uncalled for. I was taking my frustrations out on you it seems, and I'm sorry. You do not need to apologize for anything, you did nothing but get caught up in my rather shameful and public venting.
<edit> gone and removed what I still could. Sad thing is Zurai, ive seen you on the boards a lot and I agree with what you have to say 95% of the time :p
Apology accepted. It's water under the bridge.
|
Director of Game Design
|
As I was reading down this thread, I was getting quite disturbed, but am glad to see that by the bottom, everyone is making up.
Anywho, yeah, I wish I would have had another week to work on this book to add some of the little details such as these. It should probably be noted, that no matter how long I got, I still would have wanted one more week, that is just the way these sorts of books work.
I know some folks would have preferred to see easily codified lists with rational rules for the inclusion of other spells. Alas, that really just did not work for a lot of what we wanted to see from the unique spell lists. No matter how I cut it, there were spells that did not belong on the lists, and others that deserved to be there thematically but were on the wrong side of the line.
Maybe after GenCon I will spend some time to put together some simple guidelines, time permitting. If they do happen, it should be noted they will be very open to interpretation, that is just the nature of how lists like these come together.
All for now...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Anywho, yeah, I wish I would have had another week to work on this book to add some of the little details such as these. It should probably be noted, that no matter how long I got, I still would have wanted one more week, that is just the way these sorts of books work.
It's said in any creative endeavor that the artist is his own worst critic. There's always something you can "fix". This causes all kinds of trouble in my own field (computer game programming -- a lot of which end up being bloatware because the developers kept finding something new to add to make it just that tiny bit better). So yeah, I hear ya.
Maybe after GenCon I will spend some time to put together some simple guidelines, time permitting. If they do happen, it should be noted they will be very open to interpretation, that is just the nature of how lists like these come together.
I for one would be happy to see this, although I realize that even with this statement it's not unlikely that you'll just not have the time for it.
Anywho, yeah, I wish I would have had another week to work on this book to add some of the little details such as these. It should probably be noted, that no matter how long I got, I still would have wanted one more week, that is just the way these sorts of books work.It's said in any creative endeavor that the artist is his own worst critic. There's always something you can "fix". This causes all kinds of trouble in my own field (computer game programming -- a lot of which end up being bloatware because the developers kept finding something new to add to make it just that tiny bit better). So yeah, I hear ya.
Yep, I work in programming too, and it's not just in game programming, since I don't do that. Corporate programmers do the same stupid thing, and then something breaks after it goes live because you just had to tweak that last bit of code for one user. :)
I for one would be happy to see this, although I realize that even with this statement it's not unlikely that you'll just not have the time for it.
Me too, I love developer callouts on what thinking went into their decisions. I may not agree with them (see the Summoner threads for an example of that), but at least I'm not left sitting there saying WTF was he smoking? :)
As I was reading down this thread, I was getting quite disturbed, but am glad to see that by the bottom, everyone is making up.
Anywho, yeah, I wish I would have had another week to work on this book to add some of the little details such as these. It should probably be noted, that no matter how long I got, I still would have wanted one more week, that is just the way these sorts of books work.
I know some folks would have preferred to see easily codified lists with rational rules for the inclusion of other spells. Alas, that really just did not work for a lot of what we wanted to see from the unique spell lists. No matter how I cut it, there were spells that did not belong on the lists, and others that deserved to be there thematically but were on the wrong side of the line.
Maybe after GenCon I will spend some time to put together some simple guidelines, time permitting. If they do happen, it should be noted they will be very open to interpretation, that is just the nature of how lists like these come together.
All for now...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Just the thought process on how you determined the original lists would be enough I think. It doesnt have to be official, a blog post, or a web enhancement is fine. Just something to help us get started with the process of adding spells from different sources.
I don't get it; why would you need guidelines - if all existing spells (well Core and APG) are allocated to the new base classes. And they promise to include the new base classes in the allocation of new spells in future products. Isn't it good enough?
I don't get it; why would you need guidelines - if all existing spells (well Core and APG) are allocated to the new base classes. And they promise to include the new base classes in the allocation of new spells in future products. Isn't it good enough?
There are these things called "third party products" that some people like to use.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
There's a quote I heard from George Lucas (who may have been quoting someone else), to the effect that "movies are never finished, only abandoned" - a director will NEVER be fully done. There will always be one more thing he could jiggle or wiggle or tweak. You just have to come to the place, whether on your own or because the last iota of time before it must Must MUST go on to the next stage of production has passed, where you have to say, "That's it. It's enough. Time to let it go."
I find it hard to believe that there was no room to put in a small box per spellcasting class to describe the process for adding spells to that class.*
*I have not yet seen the book and it may well be so packed to the gills with stuff that a couple extra boxes would have broken the binding, but I doubt it.
|
|
I would think that guidelines for adding spells would not need to take up a lot of room, as Cartigan and a few others have pointed out. Jason mentions that maybe after the hectic time that is GenCon he might be able to put something simple together; perhaps some sort of "Left on the APG cutting room floor" web exclusive type blog could be in order? And yeah, sorry to everyone else for my derailing of the thread prior. Figured I owed an apology to everyone else as well, not just Zurai.