Spell Lists Drive Me Nuts


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Hero system is a great system especially for someone with a specific concept in mind. I have played in many Hero system games. For people who have the time and want to play a specific character it cannot be beat. It does take some system mastery to get what you want. It also requires more out of the GM because you have to create more. Pathfinder’s strengths lie in that is quicker and easier to create something.

My assumption for the role of the core bard is based on the class description in the core rule book. Role: Bards capably confuse and confound their foes while inspiring their allies to ever-greater daring. While accomplished with both weapons and magic, the true strength of bards lies outside melee, where they can support their companions and undermine their foes without fear of interruptions to their performances. In my opinion the bard spell list does this very well. While it is true that not every bard will be built this way this is the basis of the class. What makes a character unique is when they start branching out from the core abilities of the class. This is done through taking the appropriate archetypes, feats, Traits, etc..

When a class has an ability directly tied to a particular activity I consider that to be core to the class. Rangers for example get bonus feats so archery (if they take the combat style) is core to a ranger. The bard on the other hand has nothing that directly improves archery and since they are only proficient in short bows and are a ¾ BAB class. This means that to make an archer bard you are already two steps behind most dedicated archers. Again this is not to say you cannot be a decent archer, but you will never be the equal of a dedicated archer.

For the most part the classes are designed to be good at specific things. If you want to stretch this and add some depth to your character that is great, but don’t complain when you are not able to match the specialist. Part of this is also about game balance. No character can be, or should be good at everything. The bard gets a lot of abilities but for the most part they are usually weaker than other classes. They can use armor and weapons, but not a well as a martial class. They have spells, but they tend to be weaker than dedicated spell caster. The only thing they do better than any other class is skills.

As previous post proves there are ways to get gravity bow on the bards list. Instead asking for advice on how to get this done the original poster was in his own words complaining about the spell list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Hero system is a great system especially for someone with a specific concept in mind. I have played in many Hero system games. For people who have the time and want to play a specific character it cannot be beat. It does take some system mastery to get what you want. It also requires more out of the GM because you have to create more. Pathfinder’s strengths lie in that is quicker and easier to create something.

You didn't take the hint before, so I'll be blunt: Unless the Hero System allows me to play the system I like (Pathfinder) with the players I like (my friends who play Pathfinder), this is not a solution, so stop bringing it up. It is non-responsive at best, and at worst is a deliberate attempt to conflate "wants more options" with "wants to destroy the essence of Pathfinder".

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

My assumption for the role of the core bard is based on the class description in the core rule book. Role: Bards capably confuse and confound their foes while inspiring their allies to ever-greater daring. While accomplished with both weapons and magic, the true strength of bards lies outside melee, where they can support their companions and undermine their foes without fear of interruptions to their performances. In my opinion the bard spell list does this very well. While it is true that not every bard will be built this way this is the basis of the class. What makes a character unique is when they start branching out from the core abilities of the class. This is done through taking the appropriate archetypes, feats, Traits, etc..

Let's start with the easy thing - traits, archetypes and feats make your argument (insofar as you can be said to be attempting to formulate a coherent position) WORSE. They provide empirical evidence that there is nothing inherent in the concept of "Someone who uses performance-based magic" that is inconsistent with things like animating the dead (Dirge Bard) or whatever other arbitrary limitations are placed on the core class to make it conform to a "role", rather than a concept.

Again, this is the key distinction I am making. "Class" is not the same as "role", and your answer to my question about why support casting is core to the bard fails because it is essentially tautological. The bard can only cast certain spells because those spells are good for support casters, and the bard is a support caster because it can only cast certain spells. You can quote the role part of the rule book all you want - it won't address the fact that this assignment of "support role" to the bard is itself utterly arbitrary.

To put it a different way - you know when someone says "wizard" you tend to think "grumpy man with a long beard, busy eyebrows, pointy hat, and robes"? And how when they say bard you assume "Good looking, has a lute, hangs out in taverns?" Those are stereotypes. What I am saying is there's no really good reason why the bard class should be shackled to the "support role" because of the "foppish artist" stereotype, and that there is nothing lost in either flavor or game balance in allowing players the option of playing "bards" that don't conform to the traditional mold.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

When a class has an ability directly tied to a particular activity I consider that to be core to the class. Rangers for example get bonus feats so archery (if they take the combat style) is core to a ranger. The bard on the other hand has nothing that directly improves archery and since they are only proficient in short bows and are a ¾ BAB class. This means that to make an archer bard you are already two steps behind most dedicated archers. Again this is not to say you cannot be a decent archer, but you will never be the equal of a dedicated archer.

First, again, you are resorting to tautology - bards shouldn't have options for archery because bards aren't good archers because bards don't have options to support archery. This is clearly nonsense - it seeks to sidestep the question of "why" by simply asserting "because that's how it always been", instead of actually engaging with what it is about the bard as a concept (NOT ROLE!!!) that prevents it from engaging with archery.

Second, your point here that rangers have an easier time developing archery skills again only HURTS your overall argument, because it kills your argument about balance below. You are right - even bards that focus on archery are likely to fall behind an archery dedicated ranger, or even an archery dedicated fighter. Thus, it seems unlikely that the game balance will be meaningfully changed by allowing bards to be marginally better.

Third, just because rangers are great at archery doesn't mean that nobody else should be good at it, nor does it mean that ranger should be the go-to class for any player who wants to play an archer concept. This is what I mean when I said you can't solve flavor issues with system mastery - the fact that there is a different way to achieve a similar mechanical effect with an entirely different concept doesn't actually solve the problem of letting me play the character I like.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
For the most part the classes are designed to be good at specific things. If you want to stretch this and add some depth to your character that is great, but don’t complain when you are not able to match the specialist. Part of this is also about game balance. No character can be, or should be good at everything. The bard gets a lot of abilities but for the most part they are usually weaker than other classes. They can use armor and weapons, but not a well as a martial class. They have spells, but they tend to be weaker than dedicated spell caster. The only thing they do better than any other class is skills.

First, I don't actually even accept balance as a concept worthy of consideration in principle. If it is important to you, I suggest you are playing the wrong game - if balance is really important to you, I suggest you play the Chess system - it's really great for creating balanced games, which seems to be what you are after.[/ironic sarcasm]

Second, again, your explanation of the bard class and concept does not, in any way, sound exclusive with the idea of a bard who uses archery to support the party, nor does it seem to mandate organically that the only spells any bard every learns (is even CAPABLE of learning, in fact) are those spells that conform to a meta-game concept of what is good for the bard's intended "role" as a support character.

Third, you've already demonstrated within this post why balance isn't an issue - the bard is always going to be a generalist overall, because of the other class features. Allowing them to choose spells that don't follow the "support" focus won't change that, so it won't disturb the overall balance of the game.

Fourth, again, remember, lest you fall back on "hurrr!!! you advocate no classes!!!!", I'm not saying that no limits should exist. I'm saying that the limits should not be based on arbitrary game constructs like "role", and instead on logical extrapolations of specific concepts. Thus, if bards need to have a limited spell list, make it limited based on the idea of using music as a weapon, and give them only spells that logically flow from that idea, such as sonic spells, language dependent, mind affecting spells, and the like. If you're not going to do that, then at least don't pretend that one set of arbitrary limitations should be sacrosanct, and let players explore their own take on the concept without having to fight the mechanics.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
As previous post proves there are ways to get gravity bow on the bards list. Instead asking for advice on how to get this done the original poster was in his own words complaining about the spell list.

No, the previous posts prove that there are other ways to get similar mechanics, but saying someone can make a certain race or certain trait or certain class dip doesn't necessarily address the desire to play a specific concept. It does prove that your concerns about balance are either empirically false, however, since the mechanics exist and the game hasn't imploded.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

I say everyone should tell stories and occasionally roll dice to see who rolls higher.

Perfect system.

Forgive me if this comes across as rude, but if you truly believe that, why are you even on the Paizo forums? Do you even own Pathfinder? If so, why? Doesn't seem necessary with this outlook.

You missed the invisible "/s"


So the description of the class from the rule book is not indicative of what the designers thought the class should be?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So the description of the class from the rule book is not indicative of what the designers thought the class should be?

Obviously, the designers are just holding player creativity back. When they built the system they should have included the choice to completely ignore the system. Like, a rule zero or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So the description of the class from the rule book is not indicative of what the designers thought the class should be?
Obviously, the designers are just holding player creativity back. When they built the system they should have included the choice to completely ignore the system. Like, a rule zero or something.

Cute, to both of you.

Durngrun, what I am saying is the designers desire to make the bard a support class does not necessarily mean that we should consider that the only viable path for a bard, especially when it's obvious that there are plenty of very different concepts and roles that can be based on the same general chassis (see archetypes, for example), and, that given the existence of those archetypes, it seems unlikely that letting players have more freedom in spell selection would be some kind of radical, game altering change.

In essence, what you and others are advocating is that choosing a different theme or concept for the character should automatically be less optimal, in what essentially amounts to a "coolness tax". It's almost like a reverse Stormwind fallacy - the player wants to be able to make a choice based on theme, so the GM has to make sure that choice is not optimal so that the character doesn't get a mechanical benefit from roleplaying.

Dominus, what this thread needs less of is people strawmaning and characterizing minor requests as "completely ignore[ing] the system". Hell, your sarcastic response is a perfect example of why players want options like this built explicitly into the system. You are right, rule zero absolutely allows for people to make changes, but when the instinctive response to any request is to first deride the player as a cry baby or radical, it's tough to implement those changes in actual practice.

Let me demonstrate by way of an example:

I moved to a new area and decided to try to find a new group to play with. I went to a few local shops and found a group with an open spot, so I decided to try it out. I showed up with a sorcerer with the undead bloodline, and decided to really go all out on the undead theme. I described him as looking somewhat cadaverous, he often used phrases like "Final embrace" and "cold oblivion", he wore funerary clothes, etc. for his spells, I chose Chill Touch, Magic Missile, and Mage Armor. To emphasize the theme, though, I decided I would describe the missiles from Magic Missile as looking like spectral skulls, and the have him describe Mage Armor as invoking the protection of invisible spirits from beyond. I was shocked to find that this was not only not common practice, but that in fact it was considered actively "cheating" because PFS has rules against this (even though we were expressly not playing a PFS table). How much support do you think I had in that scenario for implementing a minor change based on "rule zero"? I'll give you a hint - I declined to play with that group, and I think we are all happier for that.

To be clear, my point is not that people who are fine with the status quo and think RAW should never change are wrong to feel that way. Nor am I saying that the game should cater only to the whims of people who want to "tell stories and occasionally roll dice". My point is that there is room for compromise between those two extremes, and allowing spell selection based on theme, rather than arbitrary assignments of "role" seems to me like a good example.

Dark Archive

Just because you can build the Bard differently (you can! it just involves looking elsewhere for options instead of staying full Bard!) doesn't mean that the base class, which is designed around doing the things suggested, and which it is designed fantastically for.

You're pretty much saying "I want my thing, but I want the whole game to change to satisfy me." And that's okay, you can say that. Just don't get frustrated when it's not going to happen.

Spell lists, in general, are designed to follow what the classes were designed for. For the most part, they're pretty spot on. If you want to play those classes, but get stuff from different spell lists, you've already been given a good number of options that you can use to do them.

I feel you are correct in that there is room for compromise: but that compromise doesn't involve the developers of the game. It's between the people of the community, the DMs who run games and the players who play in them.

Paizo has made mistakes in the past, yes. Plenty of them. But when they make up spell lists for classes like the Bard and Inquisitor, everything that is on those lists is there because that's how they wanted it. They're under no compunction to change it.


You know what? It's funny to see a case where the Bard class is getting the Rogue treatment.

I think it would be very interesting to see how many people that are saying "But Bard should have... I shouldn't have to pick other class stuff." are the same as say "You don't have to pick the Rogue class to be a rogue, other classes do everything better."

Then again, maybe I'm just a masochist...


What I find interesting is how widely varied different groups can be. I have what would probably be called a pretty strict group. We track encumbrance, use alignments, etc.. I can't imagine my DM wouldn't let me pick up a first level spell that fit the theme if my archer bard.


The big problem I see with allowing substitutions for spell list is where you stop? If I let an archer bard have all the spells he wants to play a cool character can I deny the combat casting bard the spells he wants? Pretty soon you have everyone having the same spells. And if I allow spell casters to choose any spell they want can I deny the martial classes the ability to use any exotic weapon they want? As a GM I don’t want to start down that slope. If a player in a game I am running really wants something extra they need to be willing to give up something to get it. I would be fine with a custom feat that allowed that added spells to your spell list like unsanctioned knowledge does for a paladin, and would probably use that as a basis. I could even see a custom trait allowing a single spell to be added to your spell list.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The big problem I see with allowing substitutions for spell list is where you stop? If I let an archer bard have all the spells he wants to play a cool character can I deny the combat casting bard the spells he wants? Pretty soon you have everyone having the same spells. And if I allow spell casters to choose any spell they want can I deny the martial classes the ability to use any exotic weapon they want? As a GM I don’t want to start down that slope. If a player in a game I am running really wants something extra they need to be willing to give up something to get it. I would be fine with a custom feat that allowed that added spells to your spell list like unsanctioned knowledge does for a paladin, and would probably use that as a basis. I could even see a custom trait allowing a single spell to be added to your spell list.

If you're asking me, then on a case by case basis. We pretty much always do custom weapon lists for martial characters.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The big problem I see with allowing substitutions for spell list is where you stop? If I let an archer bard have all the spells he wants to play a cool character can I deny the combat casting bard the spells he wants? Pretty soon you have everyone having the same spells. And if I allow spell casters to choose any spell they want can I deny the martial classes the ability to use any exotic weapon they want? As a GM I don’t want to start down that slope. If a player in a game I am running really wants something extra they need to be willing to give up something to get it. I would be fine with a custom feat that allowed that added spells to your spell list like unsanctioned knowledge does for a paladin, and would probably use that as a basis. I could even see a custom trait allowing a single spell to be added to your spell list.

Make it a trade. Magician, for example, trades quite a bit for its abilities, which include gaining several off-list spells. I imagine there are some archetypes out there by respectable third-party publishers if you don't feel comfortable making a custom archetype.

Spell research is also a time-honored method of getting spells from other lists--or more class-appropriate versions of such spells. Maybe a bard can't get gravity bow, but he can figure out how to conjure singing arrows that deals extra damage and deafen foes.

Bottom line, of course, it's your call as GM. You can put your foot down and say "no", and if you're worried about "Solomon Fighty want pants too!", perhaps you should reject it. If you're up for the challenge, though, the options are there.


As a GM I usually go by the rules so my players know what to expect. If there are any hose rules or exceptions I tell them about them up front. If there is already an in game method to handle the request I use that. This seems to be the fairest way to handle these situations. As a GM you are supposed to be impartial and not favor any one player over another.

There are also some concepts that just don’t work in the game. I had a player who wanted to play a character based on the TV series Hercules. No matter how he tried he could not build a character that satisfied what he wanted to do. The problem was he wanted to play a demi-god not a PC. I use a 25pt buy but he wanted to have the equivalent of a 60pt buy. I suggested that he base the character more of off mythology so he could dump a couple of stats to afford closer to what he wanted for physical stats. When he was not willing to do that I simply told him no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
As a GM I usually go by the rules so my players know what to expect.

We go by the rules as well, especially the one that says you can change the rules!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the Core Rules, page 220:

Core Rules wrote:
Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: Bard Spells Known or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list she now knows. With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring.

Again, that's a quote from the Core Rules, page 220. (Emphasis mine.)

With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.

Scarab Sages

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Hero system is a great system especially for someone with a specific concept in mind. I have played in many Hero system games. For people who have the time and want to play a specific character it cannot be beat. It does take some system mastery to get what you want. It also requires more out of the GM because you have to create more. Pathfinder’s strengths lie in that is quicker and easier to create something.

You didn't take the hint before, so I'll be blunt: Unless the Hero System allows me to play the system I like (Pathfinder) with the players I like (my friends who play Pathfinder), this is not a solution, so stop bringing it up. It is non-responsive at best, and at worst is a deliberate attempt to conflate "wants more options" with "wants to destroy the essence of Pathfinder".

And if you have a problem with the way the game is designed, perhaps broadening your experience will be a good thing for you and your friends.

Pathfinder is a good game system, but it is not the only games system. Mysterious Stranger is being honest with you. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want that honesty, don't ask your questions in a public forum.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What I find interesting is how widely varied different groups can be. I have what would probably be called a pretty strict group. We track encumbrance, use alignments, etc.. I can't imagine my DM wouldn't let me pick up a first level spell that fit the theme if my archer bard.

You are very lucky indeed to have such a cool DM! Most say 'no' out of habit, IME.


Seranov wrote:
Paizo has made mistakes in the past, yes. Plenty of them. But when they make up spell lists for classes like the Bard and Inquisitor, everything that is on those lists is there because that's how they wanted it. They're under no compunction to change it.

Ah, I remember my happily naive years, when I believed that every rule and option was a carefully placed part of an elegantly crafted masterpiece!


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

As a GM I usually go by the rules so my players know what to expect. If there are any hose rules or exceptions I tell them about them up front. If there is already an in game method to handle the request I use that. This seems to be the fairest way to handle these situations. As a GM you are supposed to be impartial and not favor any one player over another.

There are also some concepts that just don’t work in the game. I had a player who wanted to play a character based on the TV series Hercules. No matter how he tried he could not build a character that satisfied what he wanted to do. The problem was he wanted to play a demi-god not a PC. I use a 25pt buy but he wanted to have the equivalent of a 60pt buy. I suggested that he base the character more of off mythology so he could dump a couple of stats to afford closer to what he wanted for physical stats. When he was not willing to do that I simply told him no.

I agree, if you can't see a meaningful difference between "I want god stats" and "I don't want to pay this cool-tax*," it's probably best that you avoid using Rule 0 without a lot of consideration and forum aid.

*Great term, MrTsFloatingHead!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The big problem I see with allowing substitutions for spell list is where you stop? If I let an archer bard have all the spells he wants to play a cool character can I deny the combat casting bard the spells he wants? Pretty soon you have everyone having the same spells. And if I allow spell casters to choose any spell they want can I deny the martial classes the ability to use any exotic weapon they want? As a GM I don’t want to start down that slope. If a player in a game I am running really wants something extra they need to be willing to give up something to get it. I would be fine with a custom feat that allowed that added spells to your spell list like unsanctioned knowledge does for a paladin, and would probably use that as a basis. I could even see a custom trait allowing a single spell to be added to your spell list.

To answer your questions:

Wherever seems like a reasonable compromise between you and your players.

Yes, you can, but you probably shouldn't for the same reasons you shouldn't arbitrarily restrict archer bards, which is really the same reason you shouldn't arbitrarily say "all fighters must be sword and board from now on".

Interlude I:

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Pretty soon you have everyone having the same spells.

This is fallacious reasoning. If everyone has more options, the probability of them picking the same options goes down, not up. If your assumption is that your players would use the freedom to pick only the most optimal spells for their character then you are assuming that all your players will want to play the same character, which seems unlikely. The fact is, for all that this argument is commonly repeated as "wisdom" on the forums, it's never held any water.

Now, on with the questions:

Yes, you can, if you really feel like allowing fighters proficiency with exotic weapons is a big deal. Personally, I don't, at all, because most exotic weapons aren't worth the feat, so they simply never get used. Again, you and the player have the ability to work out a compromise. If you are finding that your players are "unreasonable", that's probably a sign that you want very different things from the game, and you should not play together. This slippery slope argument is another classic gem that really doesn't hold up.

Interlude II:

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
If a player in a game I am running really wants something extra they need to be willing to give up something to get it. I would be fine with a custom feat that allowed that added spells to your spell list like unsanctioned knowledge does for a paladin, and would probably use that as a basis. I could even see a custom trait allowing a single spell to be added to your spell list.

This is the exact "cool tax" mentality I was talking about before. Why does a bard have to give up something extra to earn the right to use one of his/her limited spells known on a spell that isn't even a very optimal mechanical one, despite being very much in keeping with the player's concept? The subconscious psychology here seems to be that if the player is being genuine about wanting to play a concept, they should be willing to pay some sort of arbitrary "cost", otherwise they are probably just trying to pull a fast one, or something. It just seems like if the expectation is that players are constantly trying to "game" the system to "break" your game, maybe that says something about the group dynamics at the table.

To conclude, you said in your follow on post:

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
As a GM I usually go by the rules so my players know what to expect. If there are any hose rules or exceptions I tell them about them up front. If there is already an in game method to handle the request I use that. This seems to be the fairest way to handle these situations. As a GM you are supposed to be impartial and not favor any one player over another.

Here again, I have to wonder at some of the assumptions underlying things like "fairness" and "not favoring any one player over another". To me, this sounds like you are assuming that at some level the players at your table are treating "fun" as a zero-sum game (i.e. if one player is having "more fun" that somehow means that the others are having "less fun"). I find this to be an odd way of looking at the game - when I am a player, I don't think I've ever been annoyed when my fellow players did something cool, especially if it made it easier for my character to stay alive and succeed. As a GM, I'm always coming up with things for characters to do

If players are feeling like they are "useless" or "overshadowed", this means one of two things: A) those players aren't good at finding ways to use their class abilities in your encounters, or B) you aren't doing a good enough job letting players use their class abilities in your encounters. Either way, there are plenty of solutions that don't require shackling players to arbitrary restrictions just for the sake of maintaining a theoretical "role" for a class.

To be clear, I'm not saying its wrong to play Pathfinder as a sort of competition, just that playing that way is not the only assumption people make, and if you do play that way, that's probably the reason why you and I want such different things from the rules.


I am a little confused about what exactly you believe MrTsFloatinghead.

Do you think that many spells are arbitrarily given to certain classes and not others and that the designers should error on the side of giving more options rather than less? For example, gravity bow is an arcane spell and if it makes sense for some bards, it should have been put on the bard list.

Or are you saying all classes should have all spells. Period.

I disagree with both of these positions but I can see the argument of the former even though I disagree while the latter I vehemently oppose.

With regards to abolishing all spell lists. I think the easiest example of why I think spell lists are important is the cleric vs wizard. Both have the standard divine and arcane spells respectively. They get slightly different abilities, but the real reason the classes feel so different is because the divine spells on the cleric list are different than the wizard list. The cleric gets extra buffs that have built in flavor of coming from a divine entity and the wizard has a bunch of spells the cleric doesn't. This divergent spell list helps the cleric and wizard feel distinct from each other so that everyone is not just a generic spellcaster class and that adds value to the game.

With regards to the bard not getting gravity bow specifically, I still disagree. Wizards and sorcerers trade health and BAB and have worse saves all to maximize their arcane might. Part of their power comes from the ability to access a wider variety of spells than other classes because they focus more on magic. That makes sense to me both mechanically and thematically. Bards gain a variety of powerful abilities and are more of jacks of all trades but masters of none. The limited spell list is part of what makes them not a master of arcane magic.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I think the OP has not argued his position well, I think this thread has turned up two distinct problems with class skill lists as-is:

1) Having long lists of individual spells makes it hard to keep track of what classes get what spells, particularly with the release of new classes and spells. As a result, classes sometimes miss out on thematic spells; for example Abadar's Truthtelling was published before the Inquisitor and didn't make it on their list until Inner Sea Gods was published, despite being a perfect fit for the class.

2) Spell lists are in some ways arbitrary - why are Abundant Ammunition and even Ki Arrow more appropriate for the bard list than Gravity Bow?

LoneKnave wrote:

The perfect solution would have been to balance spell schools for arcane/descriptors for divine and then have the classes spell list pull from a limited list.

For example bard spellcasting blurb could be

"A bard can cast arcane spells up to 6th level. He has access to all enchantment and divination spells up to 6th, and summoning and transmutation spells of levels up to 3rd."

This actually sounds like a really good solution. It maintains the idea that different classes have different spellcasting skill sets according to a theme, but minimizes the two problems above.

Ideally spell descriptors would be expanded to assist with this system. For example, bards should get [sonic] spells regardless of school, and descriptors such as [weapon] would help identify spells that should be available to classes like rangers or paladins. Spell levels would also have to be re-considered because we wouldn't have a bunch of lists saying at which level each class gets each spell (eg Remove Disease is clr 4, drd 3). I'd suggest setting them based on the level at which a character should first be able to cast the spell - which might actually be helpful in resolving some current issues with early access.

Temeryn wrote:

Do you think that many spells are arbitrarily given to certain classes and not others and that the designers should error on the side of giving more options rather than less? For example, gravity bow is an arcane spell and if it makes sense for some bards, it should have been put on the bard list.

Or are you saying all classes should have all spells. Period.

I disagree with both of these positions but I can see the argument of the former even though I disagree while the latter I vehemently oppose.

Definitely not the latter, and not exactly the former.

MrTsFloatingHead wrote:
Fourth, again, remember, lest you fall back on "hurrr!!! you advocate no classes!!!!", I'm not saying that no limits should exist. I'm saying that the limits should not be based on arbitrary game constructs like "role", and instead on logical extrapolations of specific concepts. Thus, if bards need to have a limited spell list, make it limited based on the idea of using music as a weapon, and give them only spells that logically flow from that idea, such as sonic spells, language dependent, mind affecting spells, and the like. If you're not going to do that, then at least don't pretend that one set of arbitrary limitations should be sacrosanct, and let players explore their own take on the concept without having to fight the mechanics.

Limiting a bard to only sonic spells, language dependent, mind affecting spells, and the like would probably give them less options than they have now, but those options would be less arbitrary than giving them Ki Arrow but not Gravity Bow. Erring on the side of more options is only preferable if we must be arbitrary, which is not the ideal solution.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Temeryn wrote:

I am a little confused about what exactly you believe MrTsFloatinghead.

Do you think that many spells are arbitrarily given to certain classes and not others and that the designers should error on the side of giving more options rather than less? For example, gravity bow is an arcane spell and if it makes sense for some bards, it should have been put on the bard list.

Or are you saying all classes should have all spells. Period.

I disagree with both of these positions but I can see the argument of the former even though I disagree while the latter I vehemently oppose.

With regards to abolishing all spell lists. I think the easiest example of why I think spell lists are important is the cleric vs wizard. Both have the standard divine and arcane spells respectively. They get slightly different abilities, but the real reason the classes feel so different is because the divine spells on the cleric list are different than the wizard list. The cleric gets extra buffs that have built in flavor of coming from a divine entity and the wizard has a bunch of spells the cleric doesn't. This divergent spell list helps the cleric and wizard feel distinct from each other so that everyone is not just a generic spellcaster class and that adds value to the game.

With regards to the bard not getting gravity bow specifically, I still disagree. Wizards and sorcerers trade health and BAB and have worse saves all to maximize their arcane might. Part of their power comes from the ability to access a wider variety of spells than other classes because they focus more on magic. That makes sense to me both mechanically and thematically. Bards gain a variety of powerful abilities and are more of jacks of all trades but masters of none. The limited spell list is part of what makes them not a master of arcane magic.

What I think is that players (and especially GMs) get so hung up on imaginary concerns about balance that they let mechanics become a barrier to fun, instead of being a facilitator of fun.

I think spell lists in general are a great example of this - note that it was pointed out up thread that RAW, GMs can expand and alter spell lists as they see fit. How many actually do, though? Very, very few, in my experience, and if the response to this thread is any indication, I'd wager most people instinctively reject the idea. Balance can't be the issue, since with enough jumping through hoops you can already make it happen, it just comes at the cost of being needlessly complex and compromised flavor.

This leaves us with the idea that spell lists make casters "distinct", and that's just not persuasive to me. I've already pointed out, multiple times, that this line of reasoning (if you give people the same options, all characters will look the same) doesn't make any sense unless you assume that all your players want to play the exact same type of characters. It doesn't have to be up to the Devs or the GM to decide what the "right" flavor for a Cleric or a Wizard or a Bard or a Fighter should be. Players can, and should, absolutely feel like they can explore concepts that don't line up with the stereotypes people have of certain classes, without having to fight arbitrary mechanics that serve no function other than enforcing the very stereotypes the player is trying to subvert.

I'm not even saying limited lists can't be flavorful and interesting and valid - I'm saying the flavor should not be arbitrarily tied to meta-game concepts like "Bards are a support/buff class, so they get those spells, regardless of how little they might fit the theme of someone who casts spells with performances". My suspicion is that if players and GMs actually felt like it was normal to customize spell lists for each character, at least a little bit, we would end up with a much greater variety of characters with much more interesting spell list themes.

In this regard, I think archetypes have paradoxically made things worse for people who want to make changes based on theme, because for many people the existence or lack of a specific archetype for a specific concept acts as a sort of judgement from on high about what themes are allowed, and which are not. Instead, I think we should see them as a guideline - an example of what modifying a class to fit a concept looks like.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What I find interesting is how widely varied different groups can be. I have what would probably be called a pretty strict group. We track encumbrance, use alignments, etc.. I can't imagine my DM wouldn't let me pick up a first level spell that fit the theme if my archer bard.

You are very lucky indeed to have such a cool DM! Most say 'no' out of habit, IME.

So is the bare-bones form of the argument essentially "Paizo has to change the rules to what I want because GMs can't be trusted to"? Or am I missing a subtle nuance somewhere?

Honestly, I'm sure everyone here understands that GMs are just egomaniacal jerks who love crushing the player's fun so I could see why it would be necessary to go for that angle. But maybe enough crying, pleading, and heavy bribing could get your GM to change his/her mind just this once. Frankly, the jerk is more likely to make you spend some other valuable mechanic type just to get one measly thing that isn't built into your character abilities by the standard rules than just give you something nice one time.

Scarab Sages

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


This is fallacious reasoning. If everyone has more options, the probability of them picking the same options goes down, not up. If your assumption is that your players would use the freedom to pick only the most optimal spells for their character then you are assuming that all your players will want to play the same character, which seems unlikely. The fact is, for all that this argument is commonly repeated as "wisdom" on the forums, it's never held any water.

In any game system where there is pressure to optimize, the most "efficient" builds will be quickly found and widely adopted. Peer pressure will be, and currently is, used to enforce this.

The result is a small number of "viable" builds, regardless of the number of options available. Increased options results in more efficient optimization, not an increase in "viable" builds.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

What I think is that players (and especially GMs) get so hung up on imaginary concerns about balance that they let mechanics become a barrier to fun, instead of being a facilitator of fun.

I think spell lists in general are a great example of this - note that it was pointed out up thread that RAW, GMs can expand and alter spell lists as they see fit. How many actually do, though? Very, very few, in my experience, and if the response to this thread is any indication, I'd wager most people instinctively reject the idea. Balance can't be the issue, since with enough jumping through hoops you can already make it happen, it just comes at the cost of being needlessly complex and compromised flavor.

This leaves us with the idea that spell lists make casters "distinct", and that's just not persuasive to me. I've already pointed out, multiple times, that this line of reasoning (if you give people the same options, all characters will look the same) doesn't make any sense unless you assume that all your players want to play the exact same type of characters. It doesn't have to be up to the Devs or the GM to decide what the "right" flavor for a Cleric or a Wizard or a Bard or a Fighter should be. Players can, and should, absolutely feel like they can explore concepts that don't line up with the stereotypes people have of certain classes, without having to fight arbitrary mechanics that serve no function other than enforcing the very stereotypes the player is trying to subvert.

I'm not even saying limited lists can't be flavorful and interesting and valid - I'm saying the flavor should not be arbitrarily tied to meta-game concepts like "Bards are a support/buff class, so they get those spells, regardless of how little they might fit the theme of someone who casts spells with performances". My suspicion is that if players and GMs actually felt like it was normal to customize spell lists for each character, at least a little bit, we would end up with a much greater variety of characters with much more interesting spell list themes.

In this regard, I think archetypes have paradoxically made things worse for people who want to make changes based on theme, because for many people the existence or lack of a specific archetype for a specific concept acts as a sort of judgement from on high about what themes are allowed, and which are not. Instead, I think we should see them as a guideline - an example of what modifying a class to fit a concept looks like.

Great! So this is the way you run your games then? Since you think the rules should be different does that mean everyone has to agree with you? Are you as capable of changing the current rules as a person who doesn't want Paizo to change the rules would be of changing the rules back to the way they like?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Honestly, I'm sure everyone here understands that GMs are just egomaniacal jerks who love crushing the player's fun ...

I try to live up to expectations with my group, but it's not always easy. They keep coming up with lucky die rolls and unexpected solutions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Honestly, I'm sure everyone here understands that GMs are just egomaniacal jerks who love crushing the player's fun ...
I try to live up to expectations with my group, but it's not always easy. They keep coming up with lucky die rolls and unexpected solutions.

Well it's your own fault for letting them get away with that nonsense. A real GM knows how to squash the player's hopes regardless of what they attempt.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:

So is the bare-bones form of the argument essentially "Paizo has to change the rules to what I want because GMs can't be trusted to"? Or am I missing a subtle nuance somewhere?

Honestly, I'm sure everyone here understands that GMs are just egomaniacal jerks who love crushing the player's fun so I could see why it would be necessary to go for that angle. But maybe enough crying, pleading, and heavy bribing could get your GM to change his/her mind just this once. Frankly, the jerk is more likely to make you spend some other valuable mechanic type just to get one measly thing that isn't built into your character abilities by the standard rules than just give you something nice one time.

As a GM who has in the past been very hesitant to change the rules, PF is a very complicated game and if you don't understand the reasons for certain limitations you might be hesitant to remove them lest you "break" something. Or you just might not want to deal with multiple requests for exceptions and houserules. While adding a spell to a list is simple, some things like custom spells or magic items take a bit more thinking and it's sometimes easier just to say RAW only.

I like it when Paizo explains the reasons for certain choices - like explaining their thoughts on item design and slots in Ultimate Campaign - and I wish they would do more of that because it makes it easier for cautious GMs like me to decide whether they make sense at my table. For example...

Artanthos wrote:

In any game system where there is pressure to optimize, the most "efficient" builds will be quickly found and widely adopted. Peer pressure will be, and currently is, used to enforce this.

The result is a small number of "viable" builds, regardless of the number of options available. Increased options results in more efficient optimization, not an increase in "viable" builds.

This is not very true at my table. We definitely like powerful builds, but many of us get a kick out of making unusual concepts work (for example, a halfling barbarian). These builds might use some optimization tricks (Power Attack, CaGM) but not others (Superstition, Pounce), which results in characters with some common elements, but overall diversity. It's not an evolutionary race for the most efficient/fittest build, but rather a threshold level of viability that leaves a lot of room to take non-optimal options.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Artanthos wrote:
The result is a small number of "viable" builds, regardless of the number of options available. Increased options results in more efficient optimization, not an increase in "viable" builds.

LOL. No, sorry, this is still nonsense. I don't care how much what you are saying seems like common sense to you, or how many people agree with you - the actual mathematical logic of the situation means that more options cannot possibly result in an increase in homogeneity. Either optimization is an unstoppable force, in which case we have homogeneity no matter what, or (more likely) it ISN'T an unstoppable force, and offering more options can only increase the likelihood that any two players will choose differently. Literally there is no mathematical way to argue otherwise.

If your concern is that the results of said optimization will be higher (i.e. characters will get more powerful), then:

A) I disagree, because I still don't think optimization is is prevalent in the real world as you do. Certainly I don't play that way, and I don't play with people who do.

B) I don't care, because I don't consider balance an important issue even in principle. That you do consider balance important doesn't mean you can't have balance in a world where players are allowed to choose different themes, or even make up their own.

What you are advocating is that it is more important to you that the game exist in the limits you are comfortable with than it is that people who want more options have an easier time of getting them. I disagree, obviously. That doesn't make either of us wrong, but it does mean that it's not unreasonable for me to question the status quo assumptions that seek to make your style of play the default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
Great! So this is the way you run your games then? Since you think the rules should be different does that mean everyone has to agree with you? Are you as capable of changing the current rules as a person who doesn't want Paizo to change the rules would be of changing the rules back to the way they like?

Ahh, the old classic "If you're so tolerant of alternate playstyles, why aren't you willing to tolerate my desire to have my playstyle be the default?"

The answer to your questions is obviously yes - I do think the rules should be changed such that customized spell lists for different classes based on players' concepts for the character is more explicitly allowed. The reason I feel that way is precisely because in my world players who desire the limits as they are now could still have them - in fact, it would be even easier for them to play the way they wanted in my world than it is for me to play the way I want in this one.

So, yes, basically, I'm advocating for change, because I think opening options allows more people a chance to play the game they want, instead of the status quo, where a certain playstyle is considered the default, and the partisans of that style mistake losing that default status with losing the ability to play that way at all.


Leaving aside for a moment whether this is a good idea: what are the chances that your thread in any way influences Paizo to completely upend their design philosophy and print what you, specifically, want? This isn't just "it'd be nice if rogues had more options"--it's a reversal of their idea of what spell lists are for, and it would have significant ramifications for every caster class and archetype they've ever released--to say nothing of the effect on Golarion lore. You're pushing against a mountain of inertia.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
blahpers wrote:
Leaving aside for a moment whether this is a good idea: what are the chances that your thread in any way influences Paizo to completely upend their design philosophy and print what you, specifically, want? This isn't just "it'd be nice if rogues had more options"--it's a reversal of their idea of what spell lists are for, and it would have significant ramifications for every caster class and archetype they've ever released--to say nothing of the effect on Golarion lore. You're pushing against a mountain of inertia.

I'm not sure why likelihood of success (or perceived lack thereof) makes having the conversation meaningless, or valueless, if that's what you are implying. I'm not even really that interested in changing the rules text beyond that being a means to an end - namely causing people to question some of the assumptions they bring to the table when they game.

In any case, it still boggles my mind that what I'm saying is considered so radical. Here's a specific example of the kind of rules text change I'm asking for:

"Bards cast arcane spells based on their spells known, which are selected from the bard's spell list, which represents the spells with which the bard has enough potential natural aptitude to learn to cast. Below is a sample spell list for a bard. Players may use this list, or may work with a GM to create their own limited spell list from which to choose spells known."

That's it. The key thing to me is that instead of making it sound like customizing a spell list is a crazy, onerous thing that can only be done "with GM permission" (which tends to make players wary of asking and GMs wary of saying "yes"), it makes it clear that players who choose to ask the GM to help come up with a cool theme list aren't doing anything weird or unexpected, which in turn may help diminish some of the resistance people have to the idea, without making custom lists mandatory (since the current list is still extant as an option).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Getting rid of class spell lists, or replacing them with generalized sets based on school or descriptor, would be a huge upheaval.

A more generalized set of guidelines for expanding spell lists would not be a big deal.

I don't think "with GM permission" exactly discourages asking about these options. It's certainly better than not mentioning them at all. But it doesn't allow a lot of guidance for a GM who is trying to figure out if it makes sense to give that permission and how far it should go. To take a more well-known example, philosophy clerics without a deity are allowed "with GM permission," and some people do use them. But are deities designed to have balanced sets of domains to prevent cherry-picking super-powerful combos? Should I give the cleric a spiritual code of conduct to replace the requirement to follow the deity's teaching? What does it say about my world that clerical magic doesn't have to come from deities?

Or in the case of the custom spell list, how many spells should be on it, how similar should the spells be to each other and to the class's non-spell abilities, what kind of theme can I construct, and are there any spells that really should be reserved for certain types of classes?

Heck, sometimes I think a "How to Houserule" guide would be very useful for those of us who like to be systematic but don't have a background in game design.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What I find interesting is how widely varied different groups can be. I have what would probably be called a pretty strict group. We track encumbrance, use alignments, etc.. I can't imagine my DM wouldn't let me pick up a first level spell that fit the theme if my archer bard.

You are very lucky indeed to have such a cool DM! Most say 'no' out of habit, IME.

So is the bare-bones form of the argument essentially "Paizo has to change the rules to what I want because GMs can't be trusted to"? Or am I missing a subtle nuance somewhere?

Me personally? I'm not a Paizo customer, and I couldn't care less what Paizo does or doesn't do.

In general, regarding fans who want change: The specific rules and restrictions that Paizo writes into PF very much do matter whatever Rule 0 says, because as several of us have been saying, DMs tend to default to the RAW. Even the ones who have Rule 0 at the top of their head tend to assume that any given restriction and rule has a good reason behind it, even if that reason is "This spell's writer thought that bards had too many level X spells at the time that he wrote this spell."

Simon Legrande wrote:


Honestly, I'm sure everyone here understands that GMs are just egomaniacal jerks who love crushing the player's fun so I could see why it would be necessary to go for that angle. But maybe enough crying, pleading, and heavy bribing could get your GM to change his/her mind just this once. Frankly, the jerk is more likely to make you spend some other valuable mechanic type just to get one measly thing that isn't built into your character abilities by the standard rules than just give you something nice one time.

Sarcastic strawman much?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change. Without a lot of experience or a lot of forum input, it's easy to make a call that you'll later regret.

Which, again, underscores the importance of keeping the RAW consistent and transparent. I especially like Weirdo's comment about designers explaining the choices they make -- a great thing that should happen more often in every game IMO!


blahpers wrote:
Leaving aside for a moment whether this is a good idea: what are the chances that your thread in any way influences Paizo to completely upend their design philosophy and print what you, specifically, want? This isn't just "it'd be nice if rogues had more options"--it's a reversal of their idea of what spell lists are for, and it would have significant ramifications for every caster class and archetype they've ever released--to say nothing of the effect on Golarion lore. You're pushing against a mountain of inertia.

To turn your question around: What are the chances that your replies to this thread will convince anyone that wishing for a better PF is somehow wrong or unworthy of their mental energy, regardless of how silly you think their wishes are? Or that Paizo will stay their hands from completely upending their design philosophy because of what you, blahpers, say on this thread?

I'm betting that your reply will not be fundamentally dissimilar from MrTsFloatingHead's, or anyone else's on this thread.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change.

Good thing the RAW actually do include explicit advice for GMs who are wondering if they can add spells to existing spell lists without breaking the game. It's on page 220 of the Core Rules, as quoted up-thread.

The rules of the game explicitly state that GMs should feel free, at their option, to add new spells to existing spell lists (specifically the bard and sorcerer spell lists). That is what it says in the Core Rules.

So let's review some optional rules of the game:
1) Rules for archetypes: Not in the Core Rules.
2) Rules for traits: Not in the Core Rules.
3) Rules for expanding spell lists: In the Core Rules!

If you want to add a spell to the bard or sorcerer spell list, the Core Rules say you can do it if your GM allows it (page 220). For comparison, the Core Rules say essentially the same thing about taking prestige class levels (page 374) and playing tieflings (page 406).

The Core Rules say you can play a tiefling with GM permission.
The Core Rules say you can take prestige class levels with GM permission.
The Core Rules say you can add a spell to your bard or sorcerer spell list with GM permission.

All three of those optional rules are equally valid according to the Core Rules. For comparison, archetypes, which seem to be almost universally accepted as valid character options, are not explicitly allowed by the Core Rules. Adding a spell to a spell list with GM permission is more core than taking an archetype with GM permission.

Shadow Lodge

Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change.
Good thing the RAW actually do include explicit advice for GMs who are wondering if they can add spells to existing spell lists without breaking the game. It's on page 220 of the Core Rules, as quoted up-thread.

Sure, let's quote it again.

CRB wrote:
With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring.

1) Since I can give a bard permission to cast Gravity Bow, can I/should I also give the sorcerer permission to cast Cure spells?

2) Is Gravity Bow, from the APG, really new and unusual, or is this meant to apply to setting-linked spells like Abadar's Truthtelling, or 3rd party/homebrew spells that haven't been labelled "non-bard" by Paizo?

3) Since the bard is supposed to come across the new spell while adventuring, does this mean that if I want to let the bard cast Gravity Bow, I should first provide them with a scroll of Gravity Bow or else an NPC who can cast Gravity Bow? Does "finding" the spell in this way make it feel more special?

4) Do any of the later-published options for adding spells to your class list by giving up some other ability (eg the feat Unsanctioned Knowledge) set a precedent for requiring a similar cost for any new or unusual spell added to the class list, even though one is not explicitly stated in the CRB?

"With GM permission" is more helpful than "Rule 0" since it specifies that a specific rule is generally "safe to change" but it doesn't resolve all the issues a GM might have with making these changes. Obviously there are page limitations, but sometimes more detailed advice on the implications of a change is useful.

For example, Paizo also printed guidelines for magic item pricing in the CRB with the simple note that they required some "judgment calls" to implement. People used these and they worked OK but there were some common issues (including slot and item type themes), so they expanded on and clarified item design in Ultimate Campaign.


Weirdo wrote:
stuff
Ultimate Campaign Story Feat wrote:

ELDRITCH RESEARCHER (STORY)

You seek new applications for magical energy.

Prerequisite: You must have created a new spell, or have The Way Things Work background.

Benefit: When casting a spell you've created, add 1 to your caster level. In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in Spellcraft, this bonus increases to +4.

Goal: Create a new spell of at least 6th level.

Completion Benefit: The save DCs for any spells you create increase by 1 when you cast them. In addition, when applying metamagic feats to self-created spells, reduce the total level adjustment by 1. You can't reduce metamagic costs to lower than the spell's original level in this manner.

Special: For a self-created spell to benefit from this feat, it must be a truly novel spell. Spells slightly altered from the original (for example, delayed blast fireball as compared to fireball) gain no benefit. Alchemists can benefit from this feat as though their formulae and extracts were spells.

Creating spells like that section in both Bards and Sorcerers talks about is a well established but poorly outlined mechanic in the rules. Expect table variation.


I'll give you my answers if you'd like.

Weirdo wrote:


1) Since I can give a bard permission to cast Gravity Bow, can I/should I also give the sorcerer permission to cast Cure spells?

I would if I felt it appropriate to the character, say a sorcerer with the celestial bloodline. (Not as a bonus spell mind you, but they could choose it as one of their known spells.)

Quote:


2) Is Gravity Bow, from the APG, really new and unusual, or is this meant to apply to setting-linked spells like Abadar's Truthtelling, or 3rd party/homebrew spells that haven't been labelled "non-bard" by Paizo?

Cleary that's arbitrary. "New and unusual" has to be defined within the context of the game.

Quote:


3) Since the bard is supposed to come across the new spell while adventuring, does this mean that if I want to let the bard cast Gravity Bow, I should first provide them with a scroll of Gravity Bow or else an NPC who can cast Gravity Bow? Does "finding" the spell in this way make it feel more special?

As a GM, I probably would, assuming it's taken after 1st level. Maybe not a scroll specifically, but at least see it cast or be affected by it.

Quote:


4) Do any of the later-published options for adding spells to your class list by giving up some other ability (eg the feat Unsanctioned Knowledge) set a precedent for requiring a similar cost for any new or unusual spell added to the class list, even though one is not explicitly stated in the CRB?

I'm not sure of all the different ways to add spells, so I'll say it depends. Granting a spontaneous caster extra spells is obviously a bigger boon than letting them choose an unusual spell as a known spell. If the player wanted several different spells, say a fey sorcerer wanting several different Druid spells, I would treat that differently than wanting several similiar spells, say a celestial sorcerer wanting access to the Cure line of spells, or a player wanting one particular spell, such as an archer bard wanting gravity bow.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Leaving aside for a moment whether this is a good idea: what are the chances that your thread in any way influences Paizo to completely upend their design philosophy and print what you, specifically, want? This isn't just "it'd be nice if rogues had more options"--it's a reversal of their idea of what spell lists are for, and it would have significant ramifications for every caster class and archetype they've ever released--to say nothing of the effect on Golarion lore. You're pushing against a mountain of inertia.

To turn your question around: What are the chances that your replies to this thread will convince anyone that wishing for a better PF is somehow wrong or unworthy of their mental energy, regardless of how silly you think their wishes are? Or that Paizo will stay their hands from completely upending their design philosophy because of what you, blahpers, say on this thread?

I'm betting that your reply will not be fundamentally dissimilar from MrTsFloatingHead's, or anyone else's on this thread.

Fair, I guess, apart from being a bit tu quoque, but I didn't start the thread making unreasonable demands that Paizo alter a game mechanic in a way that would have far-reaching implications for their game and their campaign setting. And I have no intention of convincing Paizo to "stay their hand" based on my post, as I have no such delusions that I could post a thread that affected Pathfinder in such a way even if I cared to. If my post provided a reality check, great; if not, no harm done.

Since it is exceedingly unlikely that Paizo will ever make such a change, it seems a waste of time to demand it. There are avenues to playing the game with open spell lists already, and there are alternate systems that already have the degree of freedom OP is asking for. Utilizing these seems to be a better course of action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
blahpers wrote:
Fair, I guess, apart from being a bit tu quoque, but I didn't start the thread making unreasonable demands that Paizo alter a game mechanic in a way that would have far-reaching implications for their game and their campaign setting.

Happily, neither did anyone else in this particular thread, since the OP's request and the follow on proposals in this thread, including my own, are minor, reasonable, and not at all radical given how closely they already hew to the RAW.

blahpers wrote:

And I have no intention of convincing Paizo to "stay their hand" based on my post, as I have no such delusions that I could post a thread that affected Pathfinder in such a way even if I cared to. If my post provided a reality check, great; if not, no harm done.

Well, since for my part the point is mostly to engage other players in a discussion about the psychology of how we play the game, and why so many of the unquestioned assumptions we hold are, in my opinion, toxic and unnecessary, I think maybe you have missed the point. I'll make it again - I'm advocating for a change to the rules mostly because it's the best way to get people to actually engage with the idea that they should examine how they play. The reality check here is that the discussion is inherently valuable, even if no concrete text changes spring forth from it.

To put an even finer point on it - my "unreasonable" change to the rules that will have "far-reaching implications" is, in essence, nothing more than a restatement of the RAW as they already exist. The only thing I am doing is changing the language from saying, in essence, "This is the spell list. You can make changes here, but only with special GM permission" to a more neutral phrasing that doesn't carry with it the implied notion that customizing spell lists somehow should require "more" GM permission than anything else in the game already does. Heck, notice that in my phrasing, I didn't even give the player the option to write their own list - the option was to use the sample or work with the GM to come up with one that better suits the player's concept.

blahpers wrote:

Since it is exceedingly unlikely that Paizo will ever make such a change, it seems a waste of time to demand it.

There are avenues to playing the game with open spell lists already, and there are alternate systems that already have the degree of freedom OP is asking for. Utilizing these seems to be a better course of action.

Note the bold - this is exactly, 100% true, which proves that the fear of radical changes with sweeping implications is unfounded. If you can already do it within the structure of the rules, then at worst this is merely an incremental change (if that). As far as Paizo making the actual text change, I agree that it's not highly likely, but only because it's probably so narrow a change it's not worth spending developer and editor time on vetting the precise wording. I do think that the example of the Hunter's "spell list" in the ACG is a reasonable facsimile for what was advocated earlier as a sort of "Nature" list, so again, I think Paizo isn't as far away from what I'm advocating as you might think.

I also think it's pretty fascinating how rules text and language can act to create and reinforce assumptions, possibly unintentionally, and in that vein, I do honestly hope that you are right that advocating for changes like I am can have sweeping consequences on the game. Not because it will change the rules to the game (since we've seen that it doesn't, really), but because it might cause people to actually be less reluctant to actually use those options.


blahpers wrote:
Fair, I guess, apart from being a bit tu quoque, but I didn't start the thread making unreasonable demands...

Please point out exactly where cranefist, or anyone else here, made a demand on anyone. The OP is an 'I wish' statement, followed up by several 'I think' reply-to-reply posts, as far as I can see.


Mr. T's floating head dominated the conversation for so long that I forgot that Cranefist was the OP. Sorry about that.

Since I don't care to scroll back for names on my phone at this point, suffice it that I consider requesting that Paizo effectively do away with class-based spell lists is unreasonable, that it was requested in this thread, and that the request was worded in such a way that it could be reasonably perceived as a demand. This is unlikely to produce any effect other than players arguing back and forth to no effect. Pathfinder isn't going to change the wording, and players who don't like class based spell lists already have more than enough means to rectify the issue at their own tables. So why waste the time and effort on a fruitless discussion?

Now, if MrT wants to argue the merits of such a system rather than actually try to convince Paizo to make it thus? Great! Let's head to the S/HR/H forum and talk alternate spell systems. You'll get plenty of discussion on the subject.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change.
Good thing the RAW actually do include explicit advice for GMs who are wondering if they can add spells to existing spell lists without breaking the game. It's on page 220 of the Core Rules, as quoted up-thread.

To rephrase and/or expand on Weirdo's reply:

The page 220 quote is basically a reminder of Rule 0, which is great as far as it goes, but again...how far does it go? Page 220 throws in the additional stipulation of "spells that a bard or sorcerer might encounter while adventuring," which is vague to the point of uselessness. It could mean anything from "Bards and sorcs should totally be able learn any spells they see someone cast from a mile away or see in some wizard's spell book" to "Bards and sorcs should be able to learn bard and sorc spells that you homebrew but don't specifically add to their spell lists, given that a friendly caster of the appropriate class trains them in this new spell for a year and a day." There's no commentary about what spell lists represent in-game, why these classes have free access to certain spells but others require DM go-ahead, or what a DM should base that go-ahead on.

Page 220 essentially never takes a DM beyond square one. (aka Rule 0.) Which leaves us with the reality that I've been pointing out: Most DMs say 'no' out of habit because they lack the system mastery and/or confidence to make a judgment call, and the books provide them with no guidance. Or they have specific reasons for believing that spell lists are spell lists for Reasons, as many Paizonians have demonstrated on this very thread. Speaking of which, judging by the replies to the OP and the largely ignored page 220 quote that you yourself posted, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain "Can I take this spell...?" requests?


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...

Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
blahpers wrote:

Mr. T's floating head dominated the conversation for so long that I forgot that Cranefist was the OP. Sorry about that.

Since I don't care to scroll back for names on my phone at this point, suffice it that I consider requesting that Paizo effectively do away with class-based spell lists is unreasonable, that it was requested in this thread, and that the request was worded in such a way that it could be reasonably perceived as a demand. This is unlikely to produce any effect other than players arguing back and forth to no effect. Pathfinder isn't going to change the wording, and players who don't like class based spell lists already have more than enough means to rectify the issue at their own tables. So why waste the time and effort on a fruitless discussion?

Now, if MrT wants to argue the merits of such a system rather than actually try to convince Paizo to make it thus? Great! Let's head to the S/HR/H forum and talk alternate spell systems. You'll get plenty of discussion on the subject.

Again, it's not unreasonable, because demonstrably it is essentially what the RAW ALREADY ALLOW YOU TO DO. The issue is that nobody ever seems to use that option, and my argument is that the reason nobody uses that option is not because it's not there, but because it's worded in such a way as to discourage people from using it (unintentionally, I think).

As for why this is worth talking about here, in this sub-forum, in this particular way: This is basically the only way to actually confront some of the assumptions directly. For example, the parts I've bolded in your post - the first is essentially saying that there is no need to adjust the rules because the rules already allow people to do what they want, while the second is saying making this change should be considered a house-rule, or an alternate magic system. Clearly, those two statements are at odds with each other, right? Either it is allowed by the rules, or it isn't. I contend that in essence, it is. If the discussion were moved to Suggestions and House Rules, that would remove from the discussion the tension between the feeling that what I'm advocating is some radical, wild-eyed nonsense, and the fact that textually, according to the rules, it really isn't. That cognitive dissonance is immensely valuable as a lever for prying apart the underlying assumptions people have about how the game should be played.

For example:

If it is allowed by the rules, why did this thread happen in the first place, and why are some people so adamantly opposed to the idea? If, as you say, players have plenty of options to get what they want, why would it seem to so many that they, in fact, don't? Again, I feel that the way the rules are worded creates a set of assumptions that are detrimental to the game as a whole. I think Paizo could look at the way rules are worded and decide if their intention really was to create those assumptions, and if not, they could consider altering the language. Even if they don't, however, I think it's still worth talking about how we, as gamers, interpret that language, and how that affects the psychology of our games. Since this is an issue that touches on the game in general, I maintain it is in the right forum.

As for the discussion becoming merely a back and forth with nothing of value said, well, I concede that it is entirely within your power to make that prophecy come true. I cannot stop you from continuing to simply repeat "What you want is unreasonable" without actually engaging my critique of that argument. I think that would be disappointing, but it is certainly your prerogative to do just that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Mr. T's floating head dominated the conversation for so long that I forgot that Cranefist was the OP. Sorry about that.

Apology accepted.

blahpers wrote:
Since I don't care to scroll back for names on my phone at this point, suffice it that I consider requesting that Paizo effectively do away with class-based spell lists is unreasonable, that it was requested in this thread, and that the request was worded in such a way that it could be reasonably perceived as a demand.

Seems to me that we're seeing a corollary of Poe's Law here: cranefist says 'I wish,' some folks reply, some other folks reply to those replies, and then people start getting the idea that the OP is 'throwing a hissy fit' (someone earlier) and that those other guys are 'making demands,' when in fact we have no evidence to suggest this at all.

I assure you that I can reasonably perceive a lot of the replies to the OP as snarky, argumentative, antisocial, and several other less flattering things. And in my younger days, I would have mistaken my perception for reality. But we can't depend on perception, particularly in such an impersonal and anonymous environment.

blahpers wrote:
This is unlikely to produce any effect other than players arguing back and forth to no effect. Pathfinder isn't going to change the wording, and players who don't like class based spell lists already have more than enough means to rectify the issue at their own tables. So why waste the time and effort on a fruitless discussion?

Playing PF is unlikely to produce anything other than a lot of wasted weekend afternoons, so why waste the time and effort on a fruitless game?

blahpers wrote:
Now, if MrT wants to argue the merits of such a system rather than actually try to convince Paizo to make it thus? Great! Let's head to the S/HR/H forum and talk alternate spell systems. You'll get plenty of discussion on the subject.

So your complaint is that this thread is in the wrong forum? Well by all means, request it be moved, but it seems to me we've gotten lots of good discussion already!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Fraust wrote:
Mysterious Stranger...I'm not advocating for a few spell lists, I'm actually advocating for ONE single spell list, and having the ability to add diversity through other avenues, namely feats and class abilities. Personally I think every class having their own snowflake list is a bloody nightmare, as you wind up with situations like the OP (though probably a little more valid), "Why doesn't the assassin have such and such spell? Oh, that's right, cuz the long list of developers don't always know every inch of the long line of rule books, so That Oneguy probably spaced That Spell when he wrote the Assassin class. Damn that sucks..." That said, I don't seriously expect PF to go AE style...just wanted to throw the idea out there for conversational purposes :)
It's a hop, a skip, and a jump from there to just doing away with classes entirely.

I say everyone should tell stories and occasionally roll dice to see who rolls higher.

Perfect system.

You should try Amber.

You don't even need the dice.

I once had a pair of blank white 10 sided dice I used to roll. I called them my Amber percentiles.

Scarab Sages

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
The result is a small number of "viable" builds, regardless of the number of options available. Increased options results in more efficient optimization, not an increase in "viable" builds.
LOL. No, sorry, this is still nonsense. I don't care how much what you are saying seems like common sense to you, or how many people agree with you - the actual mathematical logic of the situation means that more options cannot possibly result in an increase in homogeneity. Either optimization is an unstoppable force, in which case we have homogeneity no matter what, or (more likely) it ISN'T an unstoppable force, and offering more options can only increase the likelihood that any two players will choose differently. Literally there is no mathematical way to argue otherwise.

Simple mathematics can demonstrate that the number of possible builds increases as you add options. You would need far more complex algorithms to determine if the number of top tier builds has increased, remained the same, or even decreased.

Optimization is the art of culling available options and discarding everything except "the best" combinations. If a new feat or ability is markedly more powerful or versatile than an older set of options, a large portion of the population will gravitate towards that option, decreasing the number of builds that are viewed as viable.

101 to 150 of 271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Spell Lists Drive Me Nuts All Messageboards