Druids and clerics don't have to learn specific spells like other classes, but are considered to know all the spells that they are capable of casting. As the rules are written, that means that they know every druid/cleric spell ever printed in any Pathfinder book or Pathfinder compatible book (and there were many 3.x books).
As a GM I am uncomfortable letting a druid/cleric automatically know around 1,200 spells, and giving a player a 21+ page list of one-line spell descriptions would be overwhelming, especially to a new player.
I considered making them buy the spells or find scrolls for spells outside of the Core, but that felt to much like turning them into wizards. Aside from the Core spells, what would be a good way of opening up access to spells from other books to players?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One book at a time. Just start with the core books then slowly add in other books.
I agree with Debbin.
Remember, Just because paizo have published a book, it doesnt mean you have to use it.
I've just finished running Rise of the runelords part 1-3 , and specifically limited it to the core book only. Worked fine.
As long as you start out by saying "core book only" then 90% of players will be fine with that. Of the remainder, 9 out of 10 will only make a minor fuss and then forget about it in about ten minutes.
The 1% who insist they *cant* livewithout every splat book going...they're probably folks to avoid in your game .
That doesnt make splat books good, bad or indifferent... But if you dont want to have everything in your game, dont use it !
This is one of the reasons new players shouldn't play clerics, druids, wizards, or any other primary casters that can potentially know All The Spells. Such classes are for the more experienced player.
Newbies ought to be sorcs or somesuch if they want to be casters. Easier on everyone.
I agree with debbin.
Started out with the PHB, and then when conferrable with that... then you can latter add other books like APG.
Most non core spells in PF are underwhelming imo anyways. Especially for divine casters. You have a few good ones but most are weak. I think the writers are concerned about overpowering the original spells and increasing the power of casters... and if you look at what happened in 3.5 they have a good example of how that happens.
So really there isn't much reason to ban any spells imo. Stick with Core if you want. Most of the good stuff is there anyways.
A great system I'm playing in requires that you lose access to a core spell for every noncore spell you add to your spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"When should druids / clerics learn all spells?"
IMO, always unless there is some player/DM issue at work. If a player is overwhelmed, then they can self limit by only looking at one book at a time or the Dm can suggest the same. In this case, I'd be inclined to allow some free spell swapping when/if the player caught up and is just whelmed. ;)
Well, if you are just talking about Clerics and Druids, their spells are from a divine source. Their god (or primal spirit, or totem, or whatever) might 'suggest' or reveal non-core spells at an appropriate time.
This way, the player can select from a smaller list (the Core book), and they (or you, or someone else in the game who is familiar with other spells), might make suggestions from the other books, based on known on anticipated conditions.
For example, if the group is going to be going camping, Campfire Wall might become available. This way, you can introduce new prayers a little bit at a time, and in settings which make sense. The city cleric investigating murders in the slum district isn't going to see Campfire Wall, but the druid will see it pretty soon, I bet.
Of course, then you have the problem of keeping track of which spells you 'know' and can pray for, which sounds like a headache. However, it's less spells than "all spells", so maybe it will work.
In my game, the druid prays for spells in the morning, but the player discusses it with the other players first. That way, we've got the whole group (and the GM involved). The way I see it, he's pretty darn wise, so crowdsourcing suggestions helps reflect that, and divine inspiration might strike him too (I sometimes suggest something rather strongly if I think it would be obvious--or if I think that Gozreh might actually weigh in on the matter).
Another thing that I am trying is to require each 'prepared' caster to maintain a 'normal' day list of prepared spells. I don't like the idea of the prepared casters 'just happening' to have a bunch of combat useful spells every day, even if they have been in town for two weeks and aren't anticipating trouble. They can maintain a single 'normally prepared' list, or even several (traveling, cold weather, warm weather, etc.). This gives them plenty of time to select 'normally prepared' spells, and basically I think they 'swap out' from this list when selecting other spells, rather than starting new each time.
"OK, so we're facing ghouls, so I'll take some Remove Disease instead of that, and I'll drop Animal Messenger for..."
Why should there be a RAW justification , theJeff ? . There doesnt need to be one. In fact. There is *absolutely* no need for one, and your introduction of RAW into this discussion disturbs me.
If youre saying some folks have said its in RAW then I'd agree , I dont think it is in RAW.
However, I think its perfectly valid for a GM -ANY Gm - to say "I'm only allowing spells from the core book".
|
Because it's undercutting one of the few upsides that divine prep casters get. It was mentioned earlier that Wizards can find a scroll and learn it, which is both a blessing and a curse, and that they are bound to their spell books. One of the things that sets Clerics and Druids apart is that they automatically know all their spells. If you are wanting to restrict that, but still allow Wizards to have basically almost free access (they don't need to spend the time and money to research, just get a scroll), then it's really undercutting the Cleric and Druid that now have to both pay a lot of money and spend time to gain access to spells that are designed to be weaker and less useful to those of the class who now gets a big discount.
Even if the idea is to not bombard new players with large spell list option, Wizard get by far more spells than both Cleric and Druids combined, and Druid get a lot more new spell than Clerics, so it's not really that helpful of a solution, in my opinion. It's changing one of the baselines for how Arcane and Divine magic and the spell lists are balanced to favor one and negate the benefit of the other without really any compensation, and if one of the reasons they chose Cleric or Druid is so they do not need to worry about scrolls and spell books for their spells, that removes that option.
Fair nuff, the Jeff, sounds like we're broadly in agreement.
Picking up Devils Advocates point... I disagree its uncutting "the few upsides". But then, to me, roleplaying is more about telling a story with interesting characters and less about "balanced classes" and "class protection" .
If the core issue is bombarding them with too many options, then rather than giving them umpteen options, then yeah, print out a few favourties, and get them to work with that more limited list. They can always expand ourwards as they get more experienced.
If its more a game balance, or "world mythology" sort of issue, then again, I don't see why limiting the spells is a problem , as long as the class doesnt become too limited. When in comes to spells theres no reason you cant disallow some and allow others..
However, this last option strikes me as alot of work for the GM, so I dont see why saying "only core book spells" is a problem.
In fact, I'd recommed expanding that to all players (except, obviously, those playing non-core classes) if youre worried about umpteen spells ... Its rare (but not unheard of) for the additionsl spels to actually add that much to a game anyway., and if a playerreally wants to have a specific spell, you can rule on a case by case "exception" basis, which is a darn sight quicker and easier !
P.s. please forgive typos...typed on ipad, which I'm useless with.
Unless it is somehow messing up your game don't worry about it. Both classes are powerful enough to mess up a game right out of the core so a few spells they mostly won't use don't matter.
The way I see it divine casters don't "know" spells like an arcane caster. They are granted power given to them by a higher power. While the cleric from a game mechanic point is actually memorizing the spell cure light wounds, that is not what he is really doing. What he is doing is praying to his deity for the power to heal wounds. Where a Wizard has to spend time actually memorizing the spell from a book the cleric is meditating on the teachings of the deity. This is backed up by the fact that a divine caster can lose all spell casting ability if he loses favor with his power source.
A divine caster is able to cast spells without knowing how, or without having any innate power. Wizards particularly know what they are doing. Wizards get the feat scribe scroll as a free feat at first level, which means they will have at least one point in spell craft or the feat is useless. Sorcerers are born with the ability to cast spells so it comes naturally to them even if they don't fully understand it. Witches have made a pact with a power and learn their spells from their familiar. Bards are the only arcane caster that I have a hard time placing, but I can see it as part of their jack of all trades idea.
The nature of divine spell casting can have its downside as well. The power you serve may choose not to grant you the spells you asked for. Most of the time this should be done for a reason like you are directly serving an important plan of the deity and you may not be aware of something. This is usually best done sparingly and only to further the plot. The other time is as punishment for some wrong doing, that is not serious enough to warrant full lose of your spells. Maybe you were a little to unforgiving and Sarenrae decided to grant you healing spells instead of combat spells as a warning.
This probably won't be the problem you think it is; in my experience, most players rapidly find their favorite spells and prepare those en masse, and ignore 95% of the spell list unless they get a specific tipoff ("We're going to snow-covered mountains? Let me prepare Endure Elements and Resist Energy.").
You can also direct them to the online OGC site, which does have one-line descriptions of all the cleric and druid spells.
|
|
Picking up Devils Advocates point... I disagree its uncutting "the few upsides". But then, to me, roleplaying is more about telling a story with interesting characters and less about "balanced classes" and "class protection" .
Which is perfectly fine, and I agree with that, to a point. I was responding the question about why bring RAW into it at all, and I gave a reasoning that I felt was good. Being that it removes an advantage the divine casters have over arcane casters without offering anything back. There are plenty of ways to both reduce the number of spell options and also maintain a good story without this, which might be an issue for some players. (I didn't say me).
If the core issue is bombarding them with too many options, then rather than giving them umpteen options, then yeah, print out a few favourties, and get them to work with that more limited list. They can always expand ourwards as they get more experienced.
I also tried to argue that as it is usually not the Cleric's or Druids that get the most new spells, it also seems odd to "punish" those classes when it's probably the other classes that benefit from the new style that really have the issue anyway. Again, if it where universal, cool. But if you say that all a Wizard needs to do is copy a scroll for all the new spells, (unless you also mean you what to severely limit scroll access too), then it kind of defeats the purpose, right? Wizards, (and Sorcerers, and etc. . .) are still going to have access to a bunch of spells and be bombarded, while Clerics and Druids, (who have significantly less options already, including the new material) are stuck without, even if they do get scrolls here and there.
Remember that wizards (and witches, maguses, and alchemists) have to pay money to add additional spells outside of those they get or leveling up.
|
|
Limiting spells automatically known to Core Only is a good idea to reduce complexity, but I agree with Devil's Advocate that you should apply the same restrictions to all casters to keep things even - if a cleric or druid has to independently research a non-Core spell, or learn it from a scroll, or can't learn it at all, the same restriction should apply to wizards. Even spontaneous casters might have to research or study a scroll in order to add an obscure spell to their "spells known" list.
Remember that wizards (and witches, maguses, and alchemists) have to pay money to add additional spells outside of those they get or leveling up.
Yes, but if they get to learn non-Core spells as their two freebies without research, or if they have to pay less than a cleric would to research non-Core spells, then you're altering the game's assumption that prepared divine casters have access to more spells to prepare than prepared arcane casters.
This is one of the reasons new players shouldn't play clerics, druids, wizards, or any other primary casters that can potentially know All The Spells. Such classes are for the more experienced player.
I disagree. I learned 3.0 with a cleric and they're not hard - if you stick to core spells.
|
|
I specifically remember my very first character, a wizard, and the excitement at being able to look over the spell list and choose from this amazing list of spells.
That was just one book, but if I had more books, it would just be more spell lists, and it wouldn't have hurt a bit - it would have made the game better.
More options in more spells for a spellcaster is amazing. Build on it.