I never understood why so many could look at an ability and jump to that ability adding spells form other classes? It doesn't cover what level the spell will be in the new class.Because it specifically says to add spells from another class.
New Arcana (Ex): At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level.If an 11th level oracle can cast 5th level spells, then why would anyone suspect they couldn't add a 5th level wizard spell to their spells if they take IEH?
Because the bloodline ability is specific to the sorcerer class, and it assumes (or assumed I suppose at the time of writing) that the person acquiring the ability is a sorcerer who has the ability to use those spells because at the time there was no way for anyone other than a 9th level sorcerer to gain this ability. In addition, the words there specifically call out the wizard/sorcerer spell list to prevent you from adding spells from another list to your spells known as a sorcerer.
A suitable house rule would be to allow a caster to add those spells to their spells known from their own spell list.It's a good move by paizo, patching this because a lot of stuff in core was written based solely on the idea of re-writing 3.5 and they weren't spending a lot of time looking forward.
Yes, all of that is obvious. What isn't obvious is that when you use IEH, the arcane bloodline is effectivly off limits. And finding out after you have settled on a build can be annoying. Why couldn't one assume that IEH is a "Hey cool, now my oracle or bard can cast that one (or two) cool spells that are not on my spell list"?
Because people abused it and decided to use Paragon surge to temporarily learn spells allowing them to have all the spells.
Then some dudes decided that they could make a fighter who took the archemage mythic path and without reading this FAQ decided that it means they can cast all arcane spells without having to be a spellcaster.
In the end, this is the kind of thing paizo has to do for dumb fixes that we banter about when we (and they) oughta be looking at real problems like Simulacrum.
I'm not blaming paizo for this, nor am I mad. It's more the community I am disappointed in for putting them in a situation like this.
I never understood why so many could look at an ability and jump to that ability adding spells form other classes? It doesn't cover what level the spell will be in the new class.Because it specifically says to add spells from another class.
New Arcana (Ex): At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level.If an 11th level oracle can cast 5th level spells, then why would anyone suspect they couldn't add a 5th level wizard spell to their spells if they take IEH?Because the bloodline ability is specific to the sorcerer class, and it assumes (or assumed I suppose at the time of writing) that the person acquiring the ability is a sorcerer who has the ability to use those spells because at the time there was no way for anyone other than a 9th level sorcerer to gain this ability. In addition, the words there specifically call out the wizard/sorcerer spell list to prevent you from adding spells from another list to your spells known as a sorcerer.
A suitable house rule would be to allow a caster to add those spells to their spells known from their own spell list.It's a good move by paizo, patching this because a lot of stuff in core was written based solely on the idea of re-writing 3.5 and they weren't spending a lot of time looking forward.
No. It calls out the sorcerer/wizard spell list to tell you which list to select your spells from. And as the FAQ itself establishes, "spells known" *does* add your class spell list, the FAQ however restricts this to "spells known" from class features, which leads to having to read the exact same language differently. Which is what is bizarre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, all of that is obvious. What isn't obvious is that when you use IEH, the arcane bloodline is effectivly off limits. And finding out after you have settled on a build can be annoying. Why couldn't one assume that IEH is a "Hey cool, now my oracle or bard can cast that one (or two) cool spells that are not on my spell list"?Because people abused it and decided to use Paragon surge to temporarily learn spells allowing them to have all the spells.
Then some dudes decided that they could make a fighter who took the archemage mythic path and without reading this FAQ decided that it means they can cast all arcane spells without having to be a spellcaster.
In the end, this is the kind of thing paizo has to do for dumb fixes that we banter about when we (and they) oughta be looking at real problems like Simulacrum.
I'm not blaming paizo for this, nor am I mad. It's more the community I am disappointed in for putting them in a situation like this.
For using abilities to come up with cool builds? Man, I bet you must be really disappointed in people who take Power Attack and then uses a two handed weapon with it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?
No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.
Then some dudes decided that they could make a fighter who took the archemage mythic path and without reading this FAQ decided that it means they can cast all arcane spells without having to be a spellcaster.
This explicitly doesn't cover that situation. This only covers "spells known" and that whole thing is predicated on lacking any spells known.
EDIT: As a GM, by the way, I'd still find this an exceptionally cool idea for a player to do.
Because people abused it and decided to use Paragon surge to temporarily learn spells allowing them to have all the spells.
I was one of those, by the way. As a GM. I'd totally allow it still.
The problem with this FAQ is the same problem as the "stacking the same ability" FAQ: it's confusing, counter-intuitive, not in keeping with what's already written, and it kills interesting character ideas for the sake of closing a "loophole" that isn't really going to be that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
If I wanted a lot more spells, I have pages of spell knowledge - the only way of gaining all the spells was by building very, very selectively for it. It's not easy, and there are much easier ways of getting, if not the same thing, than something similar enough so as not to matter.
I know that Paizo is attempting to curb power creep - they do a fairly good job of avoiding that, and the fact that they shut down new perceived "loopholes" that arise quickly is commendable. I just think they're shutting down the wrong ones and doing so in a manner that makes the game actively less comprehensible.
Frankly, between Crane Wing, the ability scores don't stack, weapon cords, and this, Paizo's FAQs have actively been making the game system less appealing and less interesting.
It's always been a complicated system - now it's becoming a boring complicated system with nothing to gain from the complication except - in some cases - granularity, which Paizo explicitly moved away from with the creation of of Pathfinder instead of 3.5 in the first place (including the down-playing of prestige classes and the compression of skills together).
This is a frustrating thing to me, and watching them continue to make these decisions kind of breaks my heart.
I love Paizo, and I love Pathfinder as a system. I hate what the FAQs are doing to it.
Cranewing had both my wife (notably a non-melee player) and I excited for the first time to play a character who uses fighting defensively and full-defense. NOPE.
Weapon Cords allowed a really cool character concept to move and have their guns fired while still maintaining the gun rules - such an awesome visualization. NOPE.
Ability Stacking was potentially powerful, but exceedingly limited, and hypothetically allowed for RAW games to create very interesting system experiences. NOPE. (Incidentally, due to that FAQ, the single-player game I'm running now is no longer possible via RAW or RAI. I don't always subscribe to RAW or RAI, but, as the GM, I'm feeling less inspired by the system I'm using to do what I'm doing knowing that it's actively frowned upon by Paizo. It's a frustrating experience to have that excitement I'd had before partially diminished by the whole thing.)
And this? Well, the sorcerers and oracles sure were over powered weren't they, compared to those prepared casters who could easily have any spell whenever. Yep, the ability to burn through your third level or higher spells to gain access to magic was so OP we had to ban it twice in two different ways.
The worst sin a game system can commit (outside of, you know, actual sin) is to be boring. That fails the purpose of games.
Complex can be awesome. Complex with little to gain from it comes off as just complex for the sake of complexity; that's just boring.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared casters can easily have any spell whenever? Wizards can easily cast any cleric spell and vice versa? (Spell research, with GM permission, isn't quite the same thing.)
By the time an oracle can? Yes - anything they'd want for an adventure or downtime.
Not by having them prepared and cast, mind - the access is different for the different casters - but for most purposes, there isn't much they could want that they didn't already have access to.
The flexibility is that they either have access to the entire spell-list already plus some that weren't on it (clerics) or could learn every spell and make scrolls for any time (wizards) and they had plenty of tricks (mostly summons, but not exclusively) to access other spells from other lists.
This is in addition to the research spells (by GM permission).
But as for this FAQ? If it was for the purpose of curbing power, it doesn't do that much to do so (simply limits which classes and choices you make to attain it) and it does so in a way that's counter-intuitive and boring.
And if it wasn't to curb power creep? It still makes the game more boring (more mechanics, less purpose) and it serves no real purpose other than to say "No, you can't do that." which, in the end, is needless. It's time and energy wasted that does nothing but shut down doors that required a lot of time and energy to open and were good for a few specific builds for no purpose.
I don't have any problem with them wanting to make it clear that it was never intended to work like that.
I don't have a problem with it either. It just doesn't do anything like they wanted it to either way you cut it (or if it does, it's boring, confusing, and annoying).
EDIT: Also, I have an emotional response in addition to the logical one above.
This FAQ in particular feels (intentionally or not) like Devs saying, "This is our thing for us; you can't touch or play with these kinds of mechanics" which... blech. It's almost certainly not intended that way. Still kind of feels that way, as the Devs get to (by class design) add non-class spells to a class, but GMs (unless they're designing a class from the ground up or actively violating the rules) is not supposed to presume the same. :/
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion, if Paizo had a subscribe button, you'd be on my list. You've made excellent posts describing your stance on the FAQ subject.
Thanks! Nice to hear from you! :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards can.
Bring up prepared casters reminds me of a theory someone had back before ACG was being sold: the current FAQs and erratas were being issued solely to make the options in the book look better.
Take, for instance, the Wizard archetype Spell Sage, who can cast any spell from other class lists(three. Bard, Cleric, and Druid!). At any time. Sound familiar? That's right, it's better than what people were doing with Paragon Surge.
But it comes at the high cost of taking rounds to cast and using up two slots of the same level. That's horrid, but "legal". But is it still better than the Paragon Surge abuse?
Paragon Surge Abuse
- Took two feats
- A specific race(or human with a Feat)
- A third level slot cast before the spells
- Only worked with sorcerer/wizard spells
- Came into play at level 11.
Spell Sage
- Wizard only
- Starts at level 2
- Has longer casting times
- Can be any spell from three other class lists
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
We are again straying into talking about the FAQ process and not this rules question. We just had a bunch of posts deleted about the FAQ process.
We really should be discussing what abilities this FAQ changes, instead of why the FAQ process is bad, whether or not it differs from the "rules", and begging for a reversal.
I, for one, have not "begged" for anything. Nor have I discussed the process they use. Whatever their motivation, my only contribution has been: this is a disturbing and frustrating trend in FAQs, and <here's why>.
I think that's more "players aren't supposed to do the same". GM's can of course - Rule Zero. They can add house rules or whatever they please. All I see them saying is "We didn't intend this combination of abilities to grant access to spells off a different list.
Again, though, if you'g going to add complication, it needs to be interesting complication. It is not.
I still think the prepared casters thing is off base. Sure, they can get access to anything on their list. That's not the issue. They can use summons or buy magic items to arrange to have access to some spells from other lists, just like spontaneous casters can. They can't actually just learn all the spells from other caster's lists and cast them using their normal spell slots. Nor can spontaneous casters.
You are not arguing about what I said, but what you think I said.
And this? Well, the sorcerers and oracles sure were over powered weren't they, compared to those prepared casters who could easily have any spell whenever. Yep, the ability to burn through your third level or higher spells to gain access to magic was so OP we had to ban it twice in two different ways.
First, I never said they cast them. Only "have" them.
I did, however, back down somewhat and clarify the first time you'd questioned it:
By the time an oracle can? Yes - anything they'd want for an adventure or downtime.
Not by having them prepared and cast, mind - the access is different for the different casters - but for most purposes, there isn't much they could want that they didn't already have access to.
There is a great difference that is oft blithely ignored as well: summons cost a prepared casting very little, and a spontaneous caster very much, even though a spontaneous caster gains so much more from it. A sorcerer ends up with 34 non-cantrips. Nine of those dedicated to summoning granted him access to 46 additional spells in 3.5 (I've not done the math in PF, but at a glance it seems mostly comparable, if slightly altered*) - in other words slightly more than doubling his spell-access. That's awesome, but a wizard, for comparison, doesn't have to lose his limited spells known - not only could he cast most of the other spells that a sorcerer could access, but he could also access the summon monster line. () Hence, they gain the same benefits without the comparable expenditure of resources. Beyond that, there's planar binding (and variants) which both have access to... but which sorcerers must expend one to four additional spells known (limited resource) to gain access to (magic circle against <alignment>).
See sorcerers must expend extremely limited resources or money. Wizards may expend moderately limited resources or money. That is a big difference in relative ability. Clerics don't have to expend any resources at all beyond what the spell itself costs.
Beyond that, while sorcerers have access to a solid UMD, wizards have better access: a high intelligence and spellcraft and bonus feats that can be item creation feats (some limited selection of sorcerers have some limited subset of this last one).
While both are incredibly powerful, the sorcerer is far more limited in what he can do - and is far more reliant on the good grace of other classes - than the wizard is, and would have less access to "free magic" than a crafting wizard even with the "free" access to spells.
This is not to say that sorcerers or oracles are weak. Being full casters they are incredibly potent. But they still fall behind prepared full casters.
* Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong or if/how it's changed significantly in PF!
Agreed on the Prepared vs. Spontaneous caster breakdown Tacticslion, though I do rank Razmiran Priest Sorcerers up there with prepared casters, particularly if they have access to Paragon Surge. And of course I rank Shaman as the number one caster at the moment.
Haven't broken down the shaman (or even looked at it too deeply), sooooooo... I can't comment.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I, for one, have not "begged" for anything. Nor have I discussed the process they use. Whatever their motivation, my only contribution has been: this is a disturbing and frustrating trend in FAQs, and <here's why>.
Pardon me then, because that is exactly what I interpreted you doing. Having a discussion on the FAQ process and how you think it is being done the wrong way. Something that doesn't belong in this thread:
I think we may be using different meanings of "FAQ Process" then, because, while I take your point and will let it drop, I was not intending to discuss the process by which the team creates answers for FAQs. I did intend to say that I don't like this FAQ (or a number of recent FAQs, for related reasons). These are different things in my mind. However, as I said, I will drop it for your sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I like the FAQ. It just reinforces the "please don't look for cheese just because you can smell it, unless it is put on the table for you" philosophy. Oracles can still benefit from IEH(Arcane) even after the FAQ. They just have to choose spells that are on the Wizard/Sorcerer list and ALSO on the Cleric/Oracle list in order to cast them. There are more than a few. It makes those willing to invest in the feats still useful, they just don't get to cast a bunch of spells never intended for Oracles to be able to cast. (Same goes for Bards, or Clerics, or Druids, etc. that could take the feats). Not being able to cast spells that aren't on your list doesn't make these feats (or the FAQ) worthless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I like the FAQ. It just reinforces the "please don't look for cheese just because you can smell it, unless it is put on the table for you" philosophy. Oracles can still benefit from IEH(Arcane) even after the FAQ. They just have to choose spells that are on the Wizard/Sorcerer list and ALSO on the Cleric/Oracle list in order to cast them. There are more than a few. It makes those willing to invest in the feats still useful, they just don't get to cast a bunch of spells never intended for Oracles to be able to cast. (Same goes for Bards, or Clerics, or Druids, etc. that could take the feats). Not being able to cast spells that aren't on your list doesn't make these feats (or the FAQ) worthless.
It's obviously not cheese since Spell Sage Wizards can grab spells of other lists starting at level 2 (And off 3 lists at that!) and Shamans can start grabbing different spells daily at 6th. With no investment (outside of stats for the Shaman).
It's obviously not cheese since Spell Sage Wizards can grab spells of other lists starting at level 2 (And off 3 lists at that!) and Shamans can start grabbing different spells daily at 6th. With no investment (outside of stats for the Shaman).
Which is placed on the table for all to partake in (in which case it is just a snack).
Specifically looking for cases to bend/blur RAW or RAI (worse) is the cheese you have to hunt for. You shouldn't be surprised when someone smacks it out of your hands and says "Bad kitty, no cheese for you!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also like the FAQ and I'm a not a fan of the "it doesn't say I can't" philosophy. If an ability has a way to be interpreted to be limited in some way, then unless you have a rule to allow it to be unlimited, it isn't.
Again, using Paragon Surge -> Improved Eldritch Heritage *or* Cracked Orange Prism Ioun Stone to gain off-list spells was not "The rules don't say I can't." It was "The rules say I can." No serious optimizer relies on "The rules don't say I can't."
It's obviously not cheese since Spell Sage Wizards can grab spells of other lists starting at level 2 (And off 3 lists at that!) and Shamans can start grabbing different spells daily at 6th. With no investment (outside of stats for the Shaman).Which is placed on the table for all to partake in (in which case it is just a snack).
Specifically looking for cases to bend/blur RAW or RAI (worse) is the cheese you have to hunt for. You shouldn't be surprised when someone smacks it out of your hands and says "Bad kitty, no cheese for you!"
You should if it makes a fun game (which this did).
I respect that not everyone liked it.
I don't like that they expended time and resources on this to nerf characters who already weren't as powerful as other characters. Maybe it was an easy thing to write, I don't know - it's quite possible that they avoided some of the harder things because of all the possible fall-out and other stuff that would come with it.
On the other hand, this is a great FAQ, and I like it. It clarifies something and validates players' choices and builds. It makes things easier and clearer, while not playing around with word references.
Oracles can still benefit from IEH(Arcane) even after the FAQ.
And why, and how can they, exactly?
They just have to choose spells that are on the Wizard/Sorcerer list and ALSO on the Cleric/Oracle list in order to cast them.
This seems just as good, if not better, as it doesn't require an entire build to work off of and can be done from level 1.
I mean, yes, they can gain an arcane bond, and, if they invest three feats (skill focus, eh, and improved) they can use any metamagic feat they have without increasing casting time (oooooorrrrrr just use a rod), and by going all the way, they can get a +2 to DCs of one school (or, just use Spell Focus, and not bother with a four-feat chain).
Basically, they can't do anything with this chain that they couldn't do via other methods, except the familiar, which you can still get through other methods (though not quite as good, it comes with nicer pre-requisite feats). Not... not that great.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Cracked Orange Prism Ioun Stone to gain off-list spells was not "The rules don't say I can't." It was "The rules say I can." No serious optimizer relies on "The rules don't say I can't."
Wearer adds one cantrip or orison (determined when the stone is created) to his list of spells known or spells prepared
That pretty explicitly is "the rules don't say I can't".
No where in that ability is anything to cover spells from other classes, to cover what level they will be for you, etc.
Cracked Orange Prism Ioun Stone to gain off-list spells was not "The rules don't say I can't." It was "The rules say I can." No serious optimizer relies on "The rules don't say I can't."Wearer adds one cantrip or orison (determined when the stone is created) to his list of spells known or spells preparedThat pretty explicitly is "the rules don't say I can't".
No where in that ability is anything to cover spells from other classes, to cover what level they will be for you, etc.
In correct, the item says add "one cantrip or orison". Period. It tells me I can add a cantrip or orison.
'Rules don't say I can't' is more along the lines of "I can keep taking actions when I'm dead" or "the rules don't say humans can't breathe fire at first level without any expenditure of resources".
"Add one cantrip or orison eh? I'll find one with create water! Why? Because I'm going to use create water, ray of frost and prestidigitation to make snow cones!"
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In correct, the item says add "one cantrip or orison". Period. It tells me I can add a cantrip or orison.
Where does it tell you you can add a cantrip or orison that you don't already have access?
So the item allows you to add a cantrip or orison, that you already have access to but did not choose.
|
Is there some discussion somewhere in this thread about early access to PrC's? I believe that some of the ways that was achieved may not be valid any longer because of this FAQ.
I get that some question some of the overall reasoning behind this (and other) FAQ's, but I think Paizo does do the best they can to clarify rules without creating more confusion when they do so. This one clearly came out of left field for some, making a few characters have to adjust their choices that are no longer valid.
What it isn't is a particular ruling that was pulled from nowhere and suddenly slapped down for spite. However "cheese" the various uses of other classes things was or how powerful it is or isn't, it was a "loophole" that was discussed elsewhere on this website and something the developers felt needed clarified.
I like the faq, though it could perhaps have an extra half sentence in there to make it better understood. That it specifies a mechanic that is for Spontaneous casters should be pointed out somehow.
This is one of those instances where RAW doesn't match up with RAI, the devs release an FAQ to clear up what RAI is, and people are salty about it because they can no longer exploit old text with new materials.
|
It doesn't need to say that I can add it from another class. It simply says, "Add a cantrip or orison to spell known or prepared." That's all it needs to say.
Up until this nonsense the PDT is passing off as a FAQ came out, no one really questioned the ability to add a 0-level spell from another class. Why? Because it made sense.
(I hope that adequately displays my utter disgust for people like you)
Actually, and I am fairly confident I am not alone, since no one in my local area used that Ioun stone in the fashion you apparently did, none of us assumed that it allowed you to overstep your class boundaries.
Then, online, someone asserted that, and it NEVER MADE SENSE to me. It adds an extra cantrip or orison that you can have prepared. But if you can't prepare any to begin with, why would it let you do so?
The way you seem to think it works, I could, running a plain vanilla Fighter, buy one of these, have it setup to add "Guidance", and cast Guidance at will. Seriously?
It doesn't need to say that I can add it from another class. It simply says, "Add a cantrip or orison to spell known or prepared." That's all it needs to say.
Up until this nonsense the PDT is passing off as a FAQ came out, no one really questioned the ability to add a 0-level spell from another class. Why? Because it made sense.
(I hope that adequately displays my utter disgust for people like you)
Actually, and I am fairly confident I am not alone, since no one in my local area used that Ioun stone in the fashion you apparently did, none of us assumed that it allowed you to overstep your class boundaries.
Then, online, someone asserted that, and it NEVER MADE SENSE to me. It adds an extra cantrip or orison that you can have prepared. But if you can't prepare any to begin with, why would it let you do so?
The way you seem to think it works, I could, running a plain vanilla Fighter, buy one of these, have it setup to add "Guidance", and cast Guidance at will. Seriously?
Fighters don't have spells known or spells prepared so they can't add any such spells via the ioun stone.
The stone simply adds a cantrip or orison. It tells me what I can do, and now this FAQ is saying that I can't in fact, do what the item says.