| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xDIME, DMs treat particular rules which they happen to disagree with as guidelines, while other rules get treated as gospel. Or at least as "There's gotta be a good reason this rule exists, even if I have no idea what that reason might be..."
Maybe you've been luckier than I, and have had more liberal DMs, but based on the replies to this very thread, how likely do you think it is that any given DM will see this particular rule as a guideline?
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.
|
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.
On topic: I wish they would consolidate down to wizard/cleric/druid. Other classes should be assigned one of these lists as primary, with a list of additional spells, similar to how domains, bloodlines and patrons are handled.
|
The best idea I've seen so far is a written-in-core-line way to add spells from other lists. Unfortunately, because the lists are currently used to flavor/balance the classes they go with, there would be too many issues. Specifically, things like a summoner's level 2 haste and a paladin's level 1 lesser restoration. If the fee is a spell level increase, those two examples don't work with it.
TBH, you really need a different system from PF/DnD if you don't want to play into the class flavors. PF/DnD is built on classes and what type of characters they represent; it's hard to break that.
Side note: I would love a base class where picking from every spell list was her "thing".
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.
And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.
Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
Oh! And the Samsaran allows stealing from other class lists...
Or if you REALLY want gravity bow there is always Eldritch Heritage (arcane)....
|
|
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
[sarcasm] But it's not 100% fighter! [/sarcasm]
[sarcasm] But it's not 100% fighter! [/sarcasm]I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
Lol I feel like somebody wants his cake and to eat it too...
I mean, a W1/F1/EK10 is 1 BAB behind a full fighter... for damn near full casting... and a free Crit feat that is actually pretty bad ass.
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
It isn't acceptable because the OP didn't want to do it. He just wants Bards to have access to all arcane spells.
It isn't acceptable because the OP didn't want to do it. He just wants Bards to have access to all arcane spells.I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
Well as he said
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
So I assume fighter as in the class. Fighters as a class are not spell casters because they are not. If you want a spellcasty "fighter" then go Magus, EK, Bloodrager, Paladin, Cleric, Bard, Inquisitor, warpriest, ranger, hunter, Arcanist, ect.
It isn't acceptable because the OP didn't want to do it. He just wants Bards to have access to all arcane spells.I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
Well as he said
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?So I assume fighter as in the class. Fighters as a class are not spell casters because they are not. If you want a spellcasty "fighter" then go Magus, EK, Bloodrager, Paladin, Cleric, Bard, Inquisitor, warpriest, ranger, hunter, Arcanist, ect.
You should really look at what the posts are responding to as to get context. I wasn't asking for gish classes or build advice. I was commenting on the idea that Bard's should have free access to the arcane spell list "because".
|
|
Well as he said
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?So I assume fighter as in the class. Fighters as a class are not spell casters because they are not. If you want a spellcasty "fighter" then go Magus, EK, Bloodrager, Paladin, Cleric, Bard, Inquisitor, warpriest, ranger, hunter, Arcanist, ect.
You've hit the very problem many of us have with the OP. There are ways for his character, who has bard levels, to have access to gravity bow. He is rejecting those methods.
You should really look at what the posts are responding to as to get context. I wasn't asking for gish classes or build advice. I was commenting on the idea that Bard's should have free access to the arcane spell list "because".It isn't acceptable because the OP didn't want to do it. He just wants Bards to have access to all arcane spells.I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.Why is it not acceptable? Last I checked, Aasimar Sorc 1/Fighter/1/EK10/DD8 is actually not that bad....
and if you don't want the DD thing:
Sohei Monk 1/Wis sorc (forgot the bloodline) 1/EK 10 is a thing...
or the classic
W1/F1/EK10
If you want a spellcasting, sword swinging guy, there you go.
Well as he said
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?So I assume fighter as in the class. Fighters as a class are not spell casters because they are not. If you want a spellcasty "fighter" then go Magus, EK, Bloodrager, Paladin, Cleric, Bard, Inquisitor, warpriest, ranger, hunter, Arcanist, ect.
Well why should all the spell lists be condensed down to 4? It seems like you simply want to have your cake and eat it too.... I mean really?
|
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.
You're out of your element K177Y C47!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".
Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?
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.
^^^
Pretty much this...
I mean, it would be one thing if THERE WAS NO WAY EVER TO GET GRAVITY BOW IF YOU CANT CAST IT, but even that is false.
Between:
Samsaran
Ring of Spell Knowledge
Eldritch Heritage
Magician Archetype
Dipping
Wands
There is no shortage of ways to get what you want... Honestly I still feel like you have lost all your legs to stand on... your "arguments" have been torn to shreds and honestly, you just look like a whinning child...
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.Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xDIME, DMs treat particular rules which they happen to disagree with as guidelines, while other rules get treated as gospel. Or at least as "There's gotta be a good reason this rule exists, even if I have no idea what that reason might be..."
Maybe you've been luckier than I, and have had more liberal DMs, but based on the replies to this very thread, how likely do you think it is that any given DM will see this particular rule as a guideline?
Case in point.
"I see no reason why you should have X, so good luck finding and jumping those rules-hoops to get X." Most DMs react similarly to house rule requests, IME. Unless there's a clear and present reason to change a rule that s/he already happens to agree with, the player is stuck with the RAW. With the latter being more likely, because if the DM already disagreed with the RAW, there'd probably already be an established house rule in place.
And I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad practice btw; a DM has to know the game very well indeed to make wise decisions about house rule requests. But it does render the "Just speak to ur GM jeezus christ lol rules r just guidelines" sentiment terribly naive.
As a note, this thread makes me happy, because it made me aware of what the Magician archetype does. From there, I learned that Magician stacks with Watersinger.
I can't believe I spent so long trying to find a way to get Nereid's Grace on a charisma caster when the answer was right there in front of me
Note to self.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".
Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?
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.
Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun.
Note to self.As a note, this thread makes me happy, because it made me aware of what the Magician archetype does. From there, I learned that Magician stacks with Watersinger.
I can't believe I spent so long trying to find a way to get Nereid's Grace on a charisma caster when the answer was right there in front of me
Hm... that actually seems really cool... combine it with Eldritch Heritage (Aquatic) to gain some cool thematic abilities and the ability to pretty much drown out anything in a dungeon...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun."Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".
Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?
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.
LOL you are correct sir. In fact, I am never surprised to encounter people who think the world and all its itinerant rules and customs should cater to their every whim. Disappointed, saddened, exasperated...sure, but surprised? Never--I have a pretty good idea that those people exist and also why they do. You'll note I never asked OP why he feels the way he does, I simply answered his question honestly :)
"Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".
Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?
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.
That isn't an entirely apt comparison though. You need to remember that we are not merely playing a game, but also telling a story. The rules for those games only serve as rules for the game, they represent nothing more or less. Which is fine of course, they don't need to do anything other than give us something to do other than just stand in a field.
In an RPG though, the rules represent the fundamental reality of the world of the story. HP, Attack bonuses, skill ranks, etc. aren't just win/lose conditions. They reflect your character's abilities, they define what you are physically, spiritually, mentally, and magically able to do.
Then of course there is the fact that asking "why" doesn't imply disagreement. It can also be used to show confusion and/or a desire to gain knowledge or understanding.
"So why don't Bards get access to [insert spell]?"
"Because Bards aren't as magically focused as Wizards. They don't get access to the full arcane spell list because of that but they do get[blah blah blah]."
"Ohhh so they are kind of like a Jack of All Trades?"
"Yeah exactly."
"Okay cool."
Of course, similar questions can be asked of baseball or basketball as well. The point being that your average RPG has far more complex rules and thus there are many more questions that can be asked.
Saying that it is always silly to ask 'why' in regards to a game is a very extreme statement that just doesn't hold up.
Yes.I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.
Which is exactly my point.
Which is exactly my point.Yes.I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.
Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?
Eldritch Knight and Magus...
Your welcome...
I'm sorry, I thought we established that that wasn't acceptable in this thread?
If the player wants to play a spellcaster, he should probably pick a class other than fighter.And I suppose if a player wants access to certain spells he should probably pick an appropriate class.
What point? Your argument has no points. As it stands, you are just saying "I WANT THIS SPELL!!! AND I DON"T LIKE NOT HAVING THIS SPELL!!! SPELL LISTS ARE STUPID!!!"
You literally have no points thus far. Unless you are still riding on the "well.... bards have a few transmutation spells... so they should logically have ALL THE TRANSMUTATION SPELLS!!!"
I'm not the OP. I don't agree with the OP. My earlier comments were against the OP and Zhayne. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. You're out of your element Kitty Cat!
Maybe I'm the only one K177Y C47, but I've been taking most of Corrik's comments as sarcastic. I believe s/he has the same opinion on class spell lists, just not as abrasive as yours.
See, Riuken gets me.
LOL you are correct sir. In fact, I am never surprised to encounter people who think the world and all its itinerant rules and customs should cater to their every whim. Disappointed, saddened, exasperated...sure, but surprised? Never--I have a pretty good idea that those people exist and also why they do. You'll note I never asked OP why he feels the way he does, I simply answered his question honestly :)Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun."Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".
Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?
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.
Likewise, I'm never surprised to encounter traditionalists who exaggerate every question and criticism of rules and customs into some childish expression of selfishness. Disappointed, saddened, and exasperated that these traditionalists never seem to consider that rules can be changed for the better...sure, but surprised? Never--I have a pretty good idea that those people exist and also why they do. Stay classy, BoF. :)
Complaining time - man, I hate character spell lists. I really do....
FYI: The OP is Cranefist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Complaining time - man, I hate character spell lists. I really do....FYI: The OP is Cranefist.
OP announced he was complaining. How unreasonable of me to respond to his complaining for what it is.
Complaining about the rules of a game you agreed to when you elected to play that game IS silly. Especially when one of the rules is that all of the rules are imminently mutable. Just change what rules you don't like. Or come here and make spectacle of your silliness if you prefer. Just don't be surprised when people point out how silly you are being.
BRB, rewriting my Skyrim.
You really could have picked a better game for that analogy.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
: D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur with the floating head...pretty big jump from what I'm talking about to classless.
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.
|
|
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 think for the most part the spell lists are tied to a specific theme. The problem is that some people prefer different themes. The bard spell list seems to be pretty good selection based on the role of the core bard. Its theme seems to be trickery and support which fits the bard very well. It does not have a lot of direct combat spell other than a few sonic based which kind of makes sense for a class based on performance.
The original poster was complaining because one spell he wanted to use was not on the bards spell list. He wanted to make a cool archer bard and threw a hissy fit when he did not get gravity bow on his list. Bards as a rule are not noted for being archers. They only get proficiency with short bows, not long bows. While it is possible to make a decent archer bard that is not core to the class. It may be core to a particular bard’s conception, but it is not core to the class.
A class’s spell list should be about boosting the role of the class itself, not doing everything under the sun. For the most part Paizo has done a decent job of selecting appropriate spells.
If you want a system that allows you to create any spell you want for any character try Hero System. In the Hero System as long as you can afford it and the GM does not veto it you can have anything you want. It is a point based system with no character classes at all.
|
Clerics is a good question though. Why does any cleric know any spell not covered by his domain abilities? Why is Rovagug handing out CLW and protection from evil?
Because during the change from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition they decided to remove the Sphere concept of clerics and specialty priests and go to a generic spell list. In my opinion it was definitely a step back in terms of uniqueness and flavor for priests. Pathfinder's cleric, "I'm a cleric of Fire! Behold as I cast my 1 fire spell for 1st level...".
If they were to limit spells for the cleric by god's domain they would probably have to expand the domains from around 4/god to maybe 5 or 6?
2nd edition cleric
Major Spheres (to 7th lvl):
All, Astral, Charm, Combat, Creation, Divination, Guardian, Necromantic, Protection, Summoning, Sun
Minor Spheres (to 3rd lvl):
Elemental