I love the fact that you've put forth exactly 0 evidence of the contrary - or even an argument.Do you really think your argument has any merit?
You know what... Nevermind. I'll just adapt CWheezy's advice to your posts as well.
You know, this is actually quite rude. I've provided rules quotes, arguments for both RAW and RAI, and not been passive aggressive. You've not put forth a single shed of evidence or even a decent argument for neiter RAW nor RAI.
It's not a case of like Marthkus ignoring the written rules and continuing to claim something that is not in the rules despite being shown evidence on the contrary.
Instead, my argument is just claimed to be "desperate" or "stupid" rather than putting forth any kind of evidence to the contrary.
Unlike Marthkus, I am VERY willing to change my stance. However, I'd need some kind of argument or evidence to do so, which you seem to refuse to provide. If it is so stupid an argument it should be easy to counter it.
Gaber, for your argument to be valid, you need an example of an unusual spell that already falls under that line.
Blood money. And any other spell that has not been published on an actual list.
Invisibility is weird.
The monk property on a weapon has nothing to do with a monk being automatically proficient with it. It means you can flurry with it.
Meanwhile, a wizard casts spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. That's the rule. It's in the Core Rule Book. Why is this even an argument I don't understand
I love the fact that you've put forth exactly 0 evidence of the contrary - or even an argument.Do you really think your argument has any merit?
You know what... Nevermind. I'll just adapt CWheezy's advice to your posts as well.
You know, this is actually quite rude. I've provided rules quotes, arguments for both RAW and RAI, and not been passive aggressive. You've not put forth a single shed of evidence or even a decent argument for neiter RAW nor RAI.
It's not a case of like Marthkus ignoring the written rules and continuing to claim something that is not in the rules despite being shown evidence on the contrary.
Instead, my argument is just claimed to be "desperate" or "stupid" rather than putting forth any kind of evidence to the contrary.
Unlike Marthkus, I am VERY willing to change my stance. However, I'd need some kind of argument or evidence to do so, which you seem to refuse to provide. If it is so stupid an argument it should be easy to counter it.
Gaber, for your argument to be valid, you need an example of an unusual spell that already falls under that line.Blood money. And any other spell that has not been published on an actual list.
Unlike you I didn't decide to champion a joke argument.
Step back a bit and look at the title of both our arguments
"Invisibility doesn't make you quieter"
"This wizard/sorcerer spell isn't on the wizards/sorcerer spell list"
But no clearly you are better than me!
Blood money. And any other spell that has not been published on an actual list.You realize that's completely circular, right?
You've also yet to address the fact that Karzoug couldn't cast the spell if it wasn't on the wizard's spell list, because wizards don't have that clause. Neither do maguses incidentally.
If I claim monks are not proficient with knuckle axes, I don't need to point out a rule that says "monks are not proficient with knuckle axes", because you'd need an actual rule that says "monks are proficient with knuckle axes" (or "monks are always proficient with weapons they can flurry with")
Likewise, you'd need an actual rule that says "blood money is on the sorcerer spell list" (or "spells castable by sorcerers are always on the sorcerer spell list")And you don't need that clause because the clause isn't needed to cast the spell - that is covered by the magic rules (which I don't want to cite again).
The fact is that Karzoug knows the spell. How he came to know it is irrelevant. He knows it, thus he can cast it, since it has a wizard level designator.
Blood money. And any other spell that has not been published on an actual list.You realize that's completely circular, right?
You've also yet to address the fact that Karzoug couldn't cast the spell if it wasn't on the wizard's spell list, because wizards don't have that clause. Neither do maguses incidentally.
If I claim monks are not proficient with knuckle axes, I don't need to point out a rule that says "monks are not proficient with knuckle axes", because you'd need an actual rule that says "monks are proficient with knuckle axes" (or "monks are always proficient with weapons they can flurry with")
Likewise, you'd need an actual rule that says "blood money is on the sorcerer spell list" (or "spells castable by sorcerers are always on the sorcerer spell list")And you don't need that clause because the clause isn't needed to cast the spell - that is covered by the magic rules (which I don't want to cite again).
The fact is that Karzoug knows the spell. How he came to know it is irrelevant. He knows it, thus he can cast it, since it has a wizard level designator.
"Level
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects." -- pg 212 CRB
"Can cast the spell" is pretty straightforward no?
Trying to say wizards/sorcerers couldn't learn spell because it's not on there list means that they can't cast spell. Being able to cast the spell implies that it is on their list and provided a resource (scroll, wands, or spell slot) they could cast the spell. And to use the spell slot for a spell it has to be prepared for that spell or used by a spont caster who knows the spell.
Saying it is not on the list is the same thing as saying they can't cast it which is not what the rules say about spell descriptors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Everything he's been talking about-
Yes, it's straight forward. It means that they can cast the spell. Just like Karzoug can. It does not mean that it isn't an "unusual spell" as specified in the sorcerer spell class feature.
And if you're going to claim they're the same thing please show a rules quote. So far there's been none.
Again, I'm very much open to change my stance. I just need some kind of evidence.
-Everything he's been talking about-TL;DR: Sorcerers can't cast Sorcerer spells.
Stop putting words in my mouth. It has never had anything to do with casting spells. My stance is more:
"Sorcerer spells not listed in a "spell lists" section can be learnt through study only and not automatically added to your list of spells known without study".
And if you're going to claim they're the same thing please show a rules quote. So far there's been none.
I quoted rules...
Again, I'm very much open to change my stance. I just need some kind of evidence.
The problem here is the stance you've taken is so damn stupid that attempting to show you the evidence makes everybody else feel stupid too.
Us: "The sky is blue."
You: "Prove it."
Us: "Look at the sky. See, here's what the color blue looks like. See that?"
You: "Prove it."
"Sorcerer spells not listed in a "spell lists" section can be learnt through study only and not automatically added to your list of spells known without study".
So, show me some rules text that backs you up m8.
Because so far we've got "Sorcerers cast spells drawn from the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list" and the fact that Blood Money is listed as "Sorcerer/Wizard 1" (meaning it's on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list) and all you've got is "Lol, prove it".
And if you're going to claim they're the same thing please show a rules quote. So far there's been none.I quoted rules...
That do not say anything of the sorts. I've already quoted that part of the rules like three times to show that the level designation rules do NOT say anything about spell list. It mentions spell lists exactly 0 times.
Is it so unreasonable to claim that "sorcerer spell list" refers to the "sorcerer" section of the "spell lists" part of the rules?
They don't have the sorcerer clause about "unusual spells".
Funny thing about that line, sorcerers can learn cleric spells through "study" up to the GM (like so many things). Was there some other reason for a dragon to know CLWs? I forget.
Again, I'm very much open to change my stance. I just need some kind of evidence.The problem here is the stance you've taken is so damn stupid that attempting to show you the evidence makes everybody else feel stupid too.
Us: "The sky is blue."
You: "Prove it."
More like,
You: "The sky is always blue"
I: "No, it's sunset now and it's orangey"
You: "No, the sky is always blue, that's what blue means"
I: "I'm fairly certain that's not the definition of blue... Have any evidence?"
You: "You claim the sky isn't blue? How stupid"
They don't have the sorcerer clause about "unusual spells".Funny thing about that line, sorcerers can learn cleric spells through "study" up to the GM (like so many things). Was there some other reason for a dragon to know CLWs? I forget.
They can't cast them though, as they don't have a sorcerer spell designation (as by the rules you just quoted).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike you I didn't decide to champion a joke argument.
Step back a bit and look at the title of both our arguments
"Invisibility doesn't make you quieter"
Whether or not invisibility makes you quieter is completely irrelevant. The spell provides a +40/+20 bonus to stealth checks. It doesn't matter if the monster can hear you or not. Pathfinder has no specific mechanism for distinguishing perception checks based on hearing versus perception based on vision, it's all part and parcel of the same check.
You can walk around invisible, banging cymbals together and blowing into a tuba. You still get a +20 bonus to your stealth, opposed by your opponent's perception.
For the above example, however, a circumstance penalty may be warranted.
Gaberlunzie - Here's a secret for these forums. When one person tells you that you're wrong, you may still be right and that person doesn't know what they're talking about. When 3 people tell you that you're wrong, There's a small chance that you're still right, and people can't recognize the failings of the English language and the limitations of printed media.
When EVERYONE tells you that you're wrong, you're probably just wrong, and it's time to move on and let it go.
You are wrong.
Oh, and to the OP: Yes, Casters are broken after about level 9.
That do not say anything of the sorts. I've already quoted that part of the rules like three times to show that the level designation rules do NOT say anything about spell list. It mentions spell lists exactly 0 times.And if you're going to claim they're the same thing please show a rules quote. So far there's been none.I quoted rules...
I think I have demonstrated my ability to quote the same sections of the rules and argue the opposite point.
You're trying to say sorcerers couldn't cast that spell with resources when they can as per the rules you quoted.
They can't cast them though, as they don't have a sorcerer spell designation (as by the rules you just quoted).They don't have the sorcerer clause about "unusual spells".Funny thing about that line, sorcerers can learn cleric spells through "study" up to the GM (like so many things). Was there some other reason for a dragon to know CLWs? I forget.
Quote doesn't say anything about being unable to cast.
Blood Money is listed as "Sorcerer/Wizard 1" (meaning it's on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list) and all you've got is "Lol, prove it".
This bolded part is what you claim. That is what I need to see any shred of evidence for.
Because it's not in the rules for what spell level designation does (the part Marthkus just quoted).
The alternative reading is that the "spell list" heading means that something is part of a spell list. Which makes sense, since that's what it says.
Quote doesn't say anything about being unable to cast.
This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell
Is it so unreasonable to claim that "sorcerer spell list" refers to the "sorcerer" section of the "spell lists" part of the rules?Because that interpretation causes the spells in question to become completely unusable and makes the class designation in a spell's description mean absolutely nothing?
Seems pretty straight forward.
Uhm.. No? It makes the spells in question fall under the "unusual that needs study" clause, and makes class/level designation mean exactly what it says it means (as by Marthkus quote).
Unlike you I didn't decide to champion a joke argument.
Step back a bit and look at the title of both our arguments
"Invisibility doesn't make you quieter"
Whether or not invisibility makes you quieter is completely irrelevant. The spell provides a +40/+20 bonus to stealth checks. It doesn't matter if the monster can hear you or not. Pathfinder has no specific mechanism for distinguishing perception checks based on hearing versus perception based on vision, it's all part and parcel of the same check.
You can walk around invisible, banging cymbals together and blowing into a tuba. You still get a +20 bonus to your stealth, opposed by your opponent's perception.
As someone point out, doing any of those things is a -10 or -20 penalty on the check.
I've already said "Nothing I said mattered" turns out the rules take it into account.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is that Karzoug knows the spell.
A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.
Can we be done now?
Quote doesn't say anything about being unable to cast.This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell
And then specifics override general. Like specific sorcerer ability overrides general rules.
They don't have the sorcerer clause about "unusual spells".Funny thing about that line, sorcerers can learn cleric spells through "study" up to the GM (like so many things). Was there some other reason for a dragon to know CLWs? I forget.
Monsters don't need to follow the rules, and in fact rarely do.
The alternative reading is that the "spell list" heading means that something is part of a spell list. Which makes sense, since that's what it says.That list will only include spells in that book though, saying you can't cast the spell because it was written in a book that came after the one you're referencing seems... odd
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. It has nothing to do with being able to cast the spell.
Some books contain actual spell lists. Those spells on those lists are part of spell lists. Spells printed outside of spell lists are not part of spell lists.
-When a spell says it's a wizard spell, what does that mean?
A spell never says "this is a wizard spell". Wizard spell is not a rules term.
When a spell has a level designation of Sorcerer 1, it means sorcerers can cast that spell as a 1st level spell. Again, see the quote.
Monsters don't need to follow the rules, and in fact rarely do.They don't have the sorcerer clause about "unusual spells".Funny thing about that line, sorcerers can learn cleric spells through "study" up to the GM (like so many things). Was there some other reason for a dragon to know CLWs? I forget.
Eh they might be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is that Karzoug knows the spell.A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.Can we be done now?
That's a really good point. Thanks for the quote (and swoosh, no, you have not posted that quote). Hmmm. Now I feel unsure about this. But if that's the case, what's the point for that sorcerer line at all?
Stuff that's different now.
EDIT: It seems you have changed your stance while I was typing. I'll let it go at that then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigDTBone: See my update. I realize I got overly defensive; was kinda tired after people acting demeaning to me rather than posting evidence. Sorry; you have a really good point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm bound to agree with you now that a spell with a sorcerer level should be considered on the sorcerer spell list in that case. I do think the rules around it are weirdly written though, they seem to beat around the bush about it too much. They could have just said "The sor/wiz spell list contains any spell with a sor/wiz level designator".
Swoosh: That may be. Seems really weird, but I guess the alternative is worse.
BigDTBone: See my update. I realize I got overly defensive; was kinda tired after people acting demeaning to me rather than posting evidence. Sorry; you have a really good point.
No Worries :)
I love the fact that you've put forth exactly 0 evidence of the contrary - or even an argument.Do you really think your argument has any merit?
You know what... Nevermind. I'll just adapt CWheezy's advice to your posts as well.
You know, this is actually quite rude. I've provided rules quotes, arguments for both RAW and RAI, and not been passive aggressive. You've not put forth a single shed of evidence or even a decent argument for neiter RAW nor RAI.
It's not a case of like Marthkus ignoring the written rules and continuing to claim something that is not in the rules despite being shown evidence on the contrary.
Instead, my argument is just claimed to be "desperate" or "stupid" rather than putting forth any kind of evidence to the contrary.
Unlike Marthkus, I am VERY willing to change my stance. However, I'd need some kind of argument or evidence to do so, which you seem to refuse to provide. If it is so stupid an argument it should be easy to counter it.
Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm still willing to discuss stuff with you. Rules stuff, even. Just not this particular rule, because your stance on it relies on denying such an obvious fact that it borders insanity. You were just being purposely dense to "prove" your point.
|
*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part. It's exactly the same as which magic items are in a city. You don't get to pop open the DMG and select whatever you want. You can suggest to your DM that you would like to do some research into a specific spell that you want to learn. He will then go from there and say no problem or no way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm... are we still debating whether or not spellcasters are as big a problem as some make them out to be, or are we debating what spells they cast?
I still assert that they haven't broken any of my games. I will concede though that they have the possibility of doing so. A lot of things have the possibility of breaking my game; my cats have the possibility of breaking my game.
I have seen a barbarian at 3rd level run 10', jump another 30' and avoid EVERY hazard I had in the scene to attack an ankheg. He subsequently hit, then next round nearly finished the thing and drove it off; the rest of the party was either stuck behind hazards or shooting cantrips.
Could a wizard have taken out an ankheg in 2 rounds? Sure, given the right spells. I don't play/see clerics all that much but I'm sure a cleric could have as well.
The point is that there are a lot of things that can break a game. Arcane spells just happen to be one of the more... obvious and direct ways of doing so. If martial characters or rogues had some kind of "wish" function at 18th - 20th level, would that make the game less or more broken?
And one last thing: this topic is more about opinion than fact. It's not a foregone conclusion that spellcasters are a big problem; that's the opinion of some folks based on what a spellcaster is potentially capable of. My opinion is that they aren't a big problem, or at least not as big as some people have suggested. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we can't say another person is wrong for theirs.
How many wizards actually heavily invest in Stealth?
*raises hand*
Most of my wizards have Stealth. They're naturally pretty decent at it since most have a fair Dexterity and don't have armor check penalties. I supplement them with a masterwork tool, and I generally craft elixirs of hiding that I give out to party members when needed (that +10 competence bonus on Stealth goes a long way for helping turn a difficult sneak into a trivial one, even for our armor-dudes).We house-ruled invisibility to no longer provide the +20 to Stealth. Sight-based perception checks auto-fail, sure, and you have total concealment so it's a free pass to keep Stealthing every round as needed, and it provides good combat bonuses (you can buff and summon without breaking the spell), so honestly we thought it was strong enough. :P
If we were using the "invisibility makes it harder for the blind man to find you" invisibility that's in core Pathfinder, I'd never be spotted by anything within 10 CRs of my character anytime that it mattered.
EDIT: It serves double duty to invest ranks into Stealth as well, since your familiar uses your skill ranks, and thus it makes him a better scout as well (+8 size, +3 dex, +X ranks, +3 class skill to boot).
Invisibility clearly grants +20 to Stealth, which implies it makes you quieter as well as harder to see. However, it also clearly states that you can make noise.
Most GMs that I know, would say that if the invisible subject picked up a twig and snapped it in two, people close by might be able to hear it "snap."
So why then would it be any different if said invisible subject accidentally snapped a twig by stepping on it?
Logically, it wouldn't be.
My stance is more:
"Sorcerer spells not listed in a "spell lists" section can be learnt through study only and not automatically added to your list of spells known without study".
I disagree with most of the people here. Phrased that way, your stance strikes me as logical, and I believe an argument could be made for it (though I don't necessarily agree). For example, the fact that Karzoug knows the spell does not prove that it is on his spell list. All it shows is that he is capable of casting it. (Perhaps he researched it independently, which I personally believe IS strongly implied as it was not seen before his appearance.)
However, I still haven't seen any rules content that really strikes me as having backed up your view. (And, unfortunately, they are right in that it falls to you to prove your own assertions.)
A. the GM to ignore/houserule/deny the narrative power of spells
B. the players to implicitly agree to not use the full narrative power of their magic.
C. the GM to devise encounters that restrict or adapt away the narrative power of spells.
For those of us that find a lot of these examples BS (sno cones, infinite wishes, ect.)
A & B would be about things like not casting fly or teleport.
Which I don't agree with. C is the appropriate answer that takes the less work. Rewriting the rules as A to prevent casters from doing ANYTHING is a lot of work and those GMs should just stick to e6 games or PFS like games.
B. Is a sickening concept. Playing at such a table (from any perspective) would be infuriating. If C fails, you mix in some A.
EDIT: Barbars change encounters too. If you want to throw in a melee mob that is even remotely fair, you can't without the barbar instantly destroying it. You have to build the encounter around them, and you can only use spells that don't require a save against the barbar if you want any sort of effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a shit judge. Should have asked "Have you been in a sexual relationship with X in the last Y days/weeks/whatever?"
Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
And that's a houserule. By RAW they get 2 spells per level as a prepared arcane, access to all of them as a prepared divine caster, and they learn spells at each level according to the chart as a spont and can learn more through other means(FCB). There isn't any "You must study! No access no spell!" by RAW. You can add it because you find it logical, but the point of the rule is ease of play.