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.
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.
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.
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:
Maybe the problem is your use of loaded language and not necessarily your message. If you're intent on claiming to be the voice of sanity while implying that those who disagree are nutjob traditionalists who hate and fear change, I can't see the conversation going anywhere but along the rails it's been on for the past 50ish posts.
Step 1: Put ranks in Use Magic Device
Step 2: Buy scroll or wand of Gravity Bow
Step 3: Profit!
, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).
I again congratulate you on your great fortune to know such cool DMs, and your own liberal attitude! But the question I posed is: Judging from the responses to the OP of this thread, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain spell requests?
|
Just a note, you kinda ignore the second part of his point; if optimization is an unstoppable force then everyone would already only play a handful of builds. Since this is not the case (at least, some people still insist playing rogues for some reason), it stands to reason that even if more options would be given, player variety would remain the same.
Think about it: let's say a strictly superior piranha strike comes out that works for one handed finesse weapons, not just light.
What would happen if you released a new version of power attack that had no strength requirement, worked with all weapons, and had no to-hit penalty?
No optimizer would ever use power attack or piranha strike. The number of feats viewed as viable has decreased.
It may seem counter intuitive that adding options can decrease diversity, but it is a commonly occurring problem.
I again congratulate you on your great fortune to know such cool DMs, and your own liberal attitude! But the question I posed is: Judging from the responses to the OP of this thread, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain spell requests?, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).
I wouldn't draw any such conclusions. Resisting an actual change to the written rules does not imply resistance to adapting those rules to better fit a specific table. I've tossed whole swaths of rules out (e.g., alignment) but it would be pretty arrogant of me to ask Paizo to do the same to their current product line when they've clearly invested a lot of their metaphysical design into the rule set.
But in any case, what of it? If your GM says "no", tough cookies. Get a more cooperative GM or learn to work within the boundaries set by the table--or GM a game yourself and show how awesome it is to use your idea of what the rules should be like.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll give you my answers if you'd like...
Your answers make sense, but they seem to rely heavily on your intuition as an experienced GM and aren't much help to a newer GM or one who is hesitant to take the responsibility for resulting arbitrariness on themselves rather than leave it with the RAW. A more systematic set of guidelines, similar to those for magic item creation in Ultimate Campaign, might include:
- Look first for similar spells already on the class list, both mechanically and in terms of theme. Similar spells (Abundant Ammunition and Gravity Bow are archery, Heroism and Gravity Bow boost damage, Abadar's Truthtellling and Zone of Truth prevent lies) can be added without worry, while dissimilar spells require more consideration.
- Do similar kinds of characters have the spell on their list? Shield (possessed by sorcerers, wizards, alchemists, summoners, and magi) is more suitable for a witch than a paladin. (Note: it also shows up on the Bloodrager list, presumably because it's a combat-oriented sorcerer spell.)
- Can you make a substitution? Swapping Summon Nature's Ally for Summon Monster, or the Planar Ally Spells for Planar Binding, are low-impact changes. If you want to be more daring, you can even swap out entire schools, like giving a Celestial Bloodline sorcerer all conjuration (healing) spells on the cleric list in exchange for being unable to use necromancy or evocation like a normal sorcerer. This maintains some level of fair exchange.
- Classes are to some extent balanced using specialization: one class (or character) shouldn't be the best at everything. When allowing new spells, consider whether the addition gives the character a wider range of options in day to day play (as opposed to while building the character). In particular, does it step on another party member's toes by duplicating or overshadowing one of their character's abilities? Spell list changes shouldn't be used to steal another PC's spotlight - though they could move a spotlight away from the class's traditional territory.
- If you're uncertain but the player has a strong concept, consider allowing the spell "on probation:" allow it on condition that the player stop using the spell if it becomes problematic. In most cases, it won't be.
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.
...yes, but creating spells was incidental to that section. The main point is about adding existing spells to the list of a class that doesn't typically have those spells. Creating new spells was only relevant as a possible interaction with the "adding unusual spells to a list" rule.
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.
1) If the new ability is not markedly more powerful or versatile than the previous options, then optimizers will not gravitate towards that option (at least not more than towards current options).
2) A large portion of the population doesn't mean all the population, or even a single person at a given table. Thus your argument does not hold at a table with a low desire for optimization.
I wouldn't draw any such conclusions. Resisting an actual change to the written rules does not imply resistance to adapting those rules to better fit a specific table. I've tossed whole swaths of rules out (e.g., alignment) but it would be pretty arrogant of me to ask Paizo to do the same to their current product line when they've clearly invested a lot of their metaphysical design into the rule set.I again congratulate you on your great fortune to know such cool DMs, and your own liberal attitude! But the question I posed is: Judging from the responses to the OP of this thread, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain spell requests?, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).
Here are some snippets from the thread's first two pages:
I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.
I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.
If only there was some way that spell lists could just be modified to taste. It sucks that the Paizo team said "here's the rules, you better not alter them!" I had to buy a new CRB when my first one burst into flames the second I changed a rule I didn't like. I'm afraid to use the PRD now because I don't want my computer to explode.
The problem with limited spell lists is then every character will tend to have the same spells. This is the way it was in 1st edition when there were only 4 spell lists. You had cleric, magic user, druid and illusionist spells. Paladins got cleric spells; rangers used both magic user and druid. Bards were a weird case where you had to start as fighter, then go thief, and then could become a bard; who gets druid spells.
This usually meant that similar characters had the same spells. This also created the situation where you had to have certain classes. This is where the idea of the standard party of fighter, cleric, magic user, and thief comes from. I for one am glad that has changed. Now if no one wants to play a cleric his role can be covered by multiple other classes. Doing away with specialized spell lists would mean that would no longer be the same.
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
As a GM I would see no reason for the Bard to have gravity bow. It's a measly 2.5 average damage increase that can't be critical to your character concept.
It's called Rule Zero.
I think it's not really a big deal. If there was one single spell that I desperately needed, there are numerous ways to get it: the vast majority of which involve actually making efforts to go get what you want, instead of expecting it to come to you.
Not that I consider Gravity Bow, or Lead Blades, or Strongjaw, or any such feat to be really important for a martial character of any sort. Damage dice are mostly irrelevant, anyway, as most damage will always come from static bonuses. There are much more important things to be using spell slots on.
Because. Those are the rules of the game you are playing. The completely arbitrary rules of the game you are playing. Someone, somewhere, decided those are the rules and that's all there is to it. You should not be surprised to find arbitrary rules in games, they are a part of every game we play.
I didn't see any of them say "But yeah, I'd totally let your bard learn Gravity Bow." Or even that they'd hypothetically give it earnest consideration. Some of them even attest to the contrary. Maybe they'll repost to restore my faith in the Paizo community though.
But in any case, what of it? If your GM says "no", tough cookies. Get a more cooperative GM or learn to work within the boundaries set by the table--or GM a game yourself and show how awesome it is to use your idea of what the rules should be like.
Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.
Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.
An example of how more options can decrease diversity:
Say I add a feat that says: your ranged hits automatically threaten criticals. Ranged characters are already strong, but at this point there is no reason to play any melee damage dealer. Diversity is lost.
On the other hand it is not the case that there is one optimal build. Since your goal is 'defeat the monsters' not 'max dpr' you can for example, buff allies or debuff enemies or controll the battlefield, or be really good against undead, etc...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An example of how more options can decrease diversity:
Say I add a feat that says: your ranged hits automatically threaten criticals. Ranged characters are already strong, but at this point there is no reason to play any melee damage dealer. Diversity is lost.
On the other hand it is not the case that there is one optimal build. Since your goal is 'defeat the monsters' not 'max dpr' you can for example, buff allies or debuff enemies or controll the battlefield, or be really good against undead, etc...
I'm going to use Dervish Dance as a case in point to back you up. There may have at one point been the thought that the magus would be an interesting and diverse class. This one feat (Dervish Dance) caused 90% of all characters with most of their levels in magus to play the "One True Magus". Magus is no longer a class; it is a prebuilt character that wields a scimitar and shocking grasp.
|
|
All I'm trying to prove is that adding more options doesn't mean more diversity. It can, but they aren't directly comparable. Some options reduce diversity, at least in specific sub-sets. Whenever something is added, careful consideration has to be made as to how it interacts with the options already available.
|
|
No, the number of optimal feats stayed the same - one. Either the "best" build right now uses power attack, or else it uses piranha strike. I suspect the former, but it doesn't really matter. Either way, adding a feat like you propose would not change the number of viable characters, it would at worst be a one to one replacement. If your argument is that both Dex and Str based characters would use the same feat, that's possibly true, but inherent in that argument is the admission that people will have an easier time developing their different builds, which again would seem to increase diversity in overall characters. Stats wouldn't have to hit that magic "13" in order to qualify for the feat, so there is more potential freedom there as well.
The number of optimal feats has changed. Before there were two discrete feats. Which was used depended on build. Now there is only a single optimal feat, used for both builds.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a new option can lead to one build becoming very common if it is markedly more powerful than similar options (other finesse magus builds), and is stylistically restricted (eg to a weapon) for flavour reasons.
If Dervish Dance allowed dex to damage with a wider variety of weapons there would probably be less scimitars, because there would be less of a power difference between, say, a rapier and scimitar. The smaller the power difference, the less "pull" away from your favourite flavour. I expect that Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace will indeed result in a wider variety of dex magi in the future.
I also expect Dervish Dance magi are more common in theorycrafting on the boards and in PFS, because there you're not playing with a set group and there's more pressure not to be the weakest link, which encourages more optimization. At individual tables, that pressure may be less intense. I GM'd for a guy who played a Magus with a longsword. I personally played a Str 13 Dex 17 Scimitar-wielding Inquisitor of Sarenrae and did not take Dervish Dance mostly because I wanted to sword-and-board. Both of us knew the optimization level of our table and so we were willing to sacrifice some optimization for concept, secure in the knowledge that we would still be good enough to contribute.
More options can lead to more or less variety depending on both what those options are and what your philosophy of gameplay is.
|
Complaining time - man, I hate character spell lists. I really do.
I'll sit there thinking about how I'm going to make this cool bard archer. When I finish up by writing down his spells, Gravity Bow isn't on the list.
Or when I go to make a Summoner and get level 2 spells. Well, I guess I can either take Haste or handicap myself, because I'm getting these spells later than a wizard but for some reason I have an odd ball 3rd level spell on it.
I wish that there were only 3 spell lists: Arcane, Divine and Nature, and everyone just pulled off of those.
If anything, Gravity Bow should be Arcane, because you are transmuting a random object, not Nature, because bows are used in the woods.
It would also be better if they didn't jack around with the level of spells between classes. You are basically picking spells for me when you do that.
This is easy. Gravity Bow is for Rangers because it supports their role as archer. It is not on Bard list because a Bard should be playing music to support party not wasting time throwing arrows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gravity Bow is for Rangers because it supports their role as archer. It is not on Bard list because a Bard should be playing music to support party not wasting time throwing arrows.
Hey, I remember those early editions of D&D where bards couldn't inspire the party with performance and simultaneously fire arrows! Good times. I prefer Pathfinder myself.
To address the original subject: the rules are the way they are due to whim and tradition.
|
|
This is easy. Gravity Bow is for Rangers because it supports their role as archer. It is not on Bard list because a Bard should be playing music to support party not wasting time throwing arrows.
Bardic music can take as little as a swift action to start at high levels and is maintained for free. If the bard's spells are mostly out-of-combat utility or long-term prebuffs then they'll have actions to spare for archery even while performing. Also, the archaeologist archetype gets a self-buff instead of normal performance and is very well suited to be an archer.
Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.
Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.
RAW is a myth. I have ran into countless situations where there is no RAW answer, whether that be a rules conflict or rules omission.
Sometimes though, things are simple. Like the Bard doesn't have gravity bow on it's list. I'm going to have to make up countless "house-rules" as a GM because that is how the game works, if you as a player want one, you'll have to give me a valid reason.
RAW is a myth.Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.
Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.
I'm looking at d20pfsrd.com right now, and I assure you, the RAW are very real. And there's a lot of them.
I have ran into countless situations where there is no RAW answer, whether that be a rules conflict or rules omission.
So have I, but we're not talking about one of those. We're talking about a situation the RAW very much does cover; it just doesn't provide any guidance to DMs who might otherwise change it.
Why is "I want to play as a bard with a bow, and this spell seems perfect for that theme" not a valid reason?Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.
Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.
RAW is a myth. I have ran into countless situations where there is no RAW answer, whether that be a rules conflict or rules omission.
Sometimes though, things are simple. Like the Bard doesn't have gravity bow on it's list. I'm going to have to make up countless "house-rules" as a GM because that is how the game works, if you as a player want one, you'll have to give me a valid reason.
It's a 2.5 damage increase. Bard with a bow is very viable. It doesn't require that spell. The spell also adds nothing thematically to the char. It's just a minor damage buff.
Overall the spell is far too minor for the char concept for me make a house rule. Bow Bard is actually the optimal way to build a bard, so the concept doesn't need house-rule buffs.
|
|
If it's just 2.5 dmg increase it's not too big of a buff, is it?
Seriously, you have the player going "I think this'd be cool", you look at it and see that it doesn't break the balance, and then you still wouldn't say yes because... it's too much effort?
This validates Tequila Sunrise something fierce.
If it is that important, dip a level of sorcerer and grab Gravity Bow
Or maybe how about you don't lose a level of spellcasting, BAB, performance, and other class features and you just give him the spell that gives... 2,5 average damage.
It is not important. That's the point. It's like a beggar asking for the sandwich you can't even finish. If he asked for 9 level spellcasting and phenomenal cosmic power, it'd be important, and I'd tell him to go play a sorc with ranks in perform(whatever). But it's not. It's 2,5 average damage.
It's arbitrary to the max.
Then why does he need it?
If it's just 2.5 dmg increase it's not too big of a buff, is it?
Seriously, you have the player going "I think this'd be cool", you look at it and see that it doesn't break the balance, and then you still wouldn't say yes because... it's too much effort?
This validates Tequila Sunrise something fierce.
It's not "I'm not allowing this cause it breaks the game". It's "this is so minor it is not worth making a special house-rule just for it".
If it is that important, dip a level of sorcerer and grab Gravity BowExcept it's not important mechanically, really, it's important thematically, in that there seems to be no good reason to be so petty about a minor change.
Why is it important thematically? I don't see how gravity bow adds anything of thematic significance
Because the theme was "character who uses arcane magic to supplement his bow skills", so spells that are specifically designed to do exactly that thing seem like a good fit.Why is it important thematically? I don't see how gravity bow adds anything of thematic significanceIf it is that important, dip a level of sorcerer and grab Gravity BowExcept it's not important mechanically, really, it's important thematically, in that there seems to be no good reason to be so petty about a minor change.
The bard already does use magic to do that. Adding this spell does not create new thematics.
NOTE: I'm not going to address whether or not players are entitled to house-rule ignore spell list restrictions just so they can min/max more bow damage.
BTW, what spell on the bard spell list supplants archery? At first glance I can only find generic buffs.
It doesn't have to be specific to support archery.
|
|
The special houserule is saying yes. It's not even a houserule, it's in the description for the spontaneous casters that they can learn other spells with GM permission!
With GM permission you can do anything.
The spell lists for each class are published. Asking to deviate from those lists is a house rule. If it was truly important, thematically, you would take the one level dip into a class that could cast the apsll.
You want something to fit the theme of your character and are willing to pay the price, even if it results in a less then optimal character.
What is being fished for is justification to change the rules for a purely mechanical optimization. We already know the spell is desired for mechanics, not thematics, the means to acquire the spell thematically have already been shot down for reasons of pure mechanics.
If you want to add spells that give your character a mechanical advantage, what price are you willing to pay for that advantage? Asking the GM to house rule a mechanical advantage while offering nothing of value in return should prompt the GM to examine the request very carefully, and usually reply with a "NO."