How to update PFS characters to Year 2 format

So unless you are saying they are lying, it is a clarification of a rule people misunderstood couched as a clarification.

To be clear, people have poor memory and make Post Hoc changes in their mind all the time about their reasons for doing something without lying.

I'm not saying that the Paizo developers are lying. But I still find it nearly literally incredible that this was always their intent and they expressed it THAT badly.

But I agree with Bob. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. Its a hideously bad rule that is very poorly expressed. It should be changed.

Why not just make all non-CRB spells "Uncommon"?

Why not just make all non-CRB spells "Uncommon"?

Right now, they can get them, but have to spend resources to get them.

If they were uncommon, they could not get them.

I will say one thing in Paizo's favor, this isn't the first time a rule has been used (or ignored) by virtually the entire community and they were not aware of it.

Remember the Magical Bow clarification. All the archers felt that one.

I think what Clerics and Druids need if this change is going to go through is Spellbooks like Wizards. Call them Prayerbooks, Holy Texts, Natural Writings or whatever, but since ostensibly they also now have to keep a spellbook, it should be codified as a class feature. This will help people set proper expectations for the classes they pick.

Sure, their books are much more complete than wizards to begin with, but they've also got anathema and such to deal with.

Jimmy Dick wrote:

Sagian wrote:

Jimmy Dick wrote:

My wizard is so happy with the ruling on spells for prepared casters!

What ruling?

I was thrilled that there were tutors at the Grand Lodge for wizard to learn any common spell from. We no longer had to buy a scroll to do so, just pay the cost to Learn a Spell.

I think, just like I've been the only person paying for copies of formulas, you were probably the only person doing this =\

My level 5 crafting wizard waves in solidarity.

I have an interesting corner case for my main PFS character. He is a cleric of Kerkamoth, a deity from Gods & Magic. Kerkamoth grants its clerics the penumbral shroud spell at 1st level. Since that spell is in Gods & Magic, does that mean that I have to pay to learn it?

Sagian wrote:

Jimmy Dick wrote:

My wizard is so happy with the ruling on spells for prepared casters!

What ruling?

I was thrilled that there were tutors at the Grand Lodge for wizard to learn any common spell from. We no longer had to buy a scroll to do so, just pay the cost to Learn a Spell.

I'm not happy with the impact on Clerics and Druids though.

Ahhh! That is cool. Thanks for the response.

Something I hadn't thought of based on this blog until I ran some tonight: if we're to treat Bounties as PFS adventures (meaning no campaign mode) based on the update in this blog, does that mean players get to use boons, give out GM Glyph hero points, etc. as they would in a Scenario or Quest? Or is it just the PFS character restrictions, none of the perks? Or is it campaign mode (so those would be up to the GM) except for the restriction on characters?

Wouldn't it be easier to just say 'run it as you would any other PFS adventure'?

I think what Clerics and Druids need if this change is going to go through is Spellbooks like Wizards. Call them Prayerbooks, Holy Texts, Natural Writings or whatever, but since ostensibly they also now have to keep a spellbook, it should be codified as a class feature. This will help people set proper expectations for the classes they pick.

Sure, their books are much more complete than wizards to begin with, but they've also got anathema and such to deal with.

Or make it so all prepared casters just know their all the Common spells on their list, so the players of prepared casters don't need to keep track of spells known or gold spent to Learn a Spell.

Less bookkeeping is fun for everyone!

I have an interesting corner case for my main PFS character. He is a cleric of Kerkamoth, a deity from Gods & Magic. Kerkamoth grants its clerics the penumbral shroud spell at 1st level. Since that spell is in Gods & Magic, does that mean that I have to pay to learn it?

Your specific class feature grants you explicit access. You shouldn’t have a problem.

Honestly, the biggest thing that bugs me about this is this:

Wizards are restricted to CRB spells for their free spells.
Witches are not.
Wizard Dedication is not.

I really see no reason Wizard shouldn't be able to pick outside the CRB if Witch can. And certainly the rule for the dedication shouldn't be more permissive than the base class.

A second thing that bugs me is that I think there's a point where a rule is misinterpreted so broadly that the misinterpretation has become the de facto rule, regardless of the de jure intent. So for many many players this feels like a nerf because they were understandably reading an unclear passage in a way consistent with prior expectations.

You can certainly make the case to the design team that they should change to rule to conform to the way the game is actually played.

You can certainly make the case to the design team that they should change to rule to conform to the way the game is actually played.

I'd argue that this new interpretation IS the change.

At the very least, the rules in the Core Rulebook are INCREDIBLY vague and ambiguous if this was always the intent. Just about everybody seems to have read them the same way (clerics and druids got to use all common spells from all books for free). So far, even the people on these threads defending this "clarification" haven't stated (at least, if they did I missed it) that THEY always thought the rules to be as currently "Clarified". That this new interpretation is the only reasonable way to have always interpreted the rules.

So, I don't want the design team to change anything. I want to go back to what the rules (depending on ones point of view) CLEARLY stated OR that they could easily be interpreted to say (so easily that just about everybody seems to have read them the same way)

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

andreww wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Agreed. The announcement of this decision was flawed.

I guess Org Play Leadership assumed everyone was already playing by these rules, and that they didn't think this was an "announcement" at all?

That seems unlikely since this "clarification" runs counter to what the CRB says and 50 years of history with clerics and druids.

So much of PF2 runs counter to 50 years of D&D, including the Action economy. That isn't really an argument at this point.

No, but the past 14 months of PF2 (or 7 months of Gods & Magic if you want to restrict it to when there was another book with spells) is. We're not talking about the unveiling of PF2 here. We're talking about a sudden reversal couched as a "clarification."

Yes, and what they are saying is this is how it was supposed to work for all of those 14 months. So unless you are saying they are lying, it is a clarification of a rule people misunderstood couched as a clarification.

I doubt anyone here is accusing Tonya of lying. But it's entirely possible to imagine a Slack conversation where one person answered a question they thought was being asked and not the one that was asked. Something like this:

Tonya: Hey, [Dev], we got a question about how clerics and druids get spells outside of the core rulebook. How can they do that?
[Dev]: (Assumes we're talking about uncommon or higher spells) That uses the learn a spell activity
Tonya: Great, thanks for the clarification. We'll provide that answer back.

When a "clarification" seems to fly in the face of common sense and the established rarity system that exists, the simpler explanation is usually a miscommunication. But since the dev team is silent on the matter and the clarifications provided in this thread amount to very little, it's not exactly inspiring confidence.

coriolis wrote:

I have an interesting corner case for my main PFS character. He is a cleric of Kerkamoth, a deity from Gods & Magic. Kerkamoth grants its clerics the penumbral shroud spell at 1st level. Since that spell is in Gods & Magic, does that mean that I have to pay to learn it?

Your specific class feature grants you explicit access. You shouldn’t have a problem.

But I think that's basically the argument about Common, non-Core spells. Characters have *access* to those Common spells, because they're Common. But you still, apparently, have to pay to *learn* them.

This statement should not be taken as an endorsement or support of that idea.

So far, even the people on these threads defending this "clarification" haven't stated (at least, if they did I missed it) that THEY always thought the rules to be as currently "Clarified".

I read it as clarified, but then I have barely played any 2E for it to have come up in. And when I did, there were no other books to have spells from.

I have to admit that I am often perplexed what gets and FAQ and how they work (the forced movement one for SFS still perplexes and annoys me), it sometimes feels like we are worried about some leaks in the roof, and the designers decide to change the wallpaper in the downstairs toilet.

A greater annoyance, for me, using the Forced Movement FAQ as an example, will be the inevitable repeal of said FAQ, and the subsequent refusal of Org Play Leadership to allow characters who focused their builds around Bull Rushing to then Rebuild.

Your specific class feature grants you explicit access. You shouldn’t have a problem.

Except what we're talking about isn't an access issue as defined buy the CRB. You have access to all common spells from any book that is sanctioned. penumbral Shroud is a common spell. The issue is whether or not you get get it for free. Per the language in the CRB, no you would have to pay for it which makes this another cost of entry and creates more value imbalance between character options.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Your specific class feature grants you explicit access. You shouldn’t have a problem.

Except what we're talking about isn't an access issue as defined buy the CRB. You have access to all common spells from any book that is sanctioned. penumbral Shroud is a common spell. The issue is whether or not you get get it for free. Per the language in the CRB, no you would have to pay for it which makes this another cost of entry and creates more value imbalance between character options.

The deity directly adds penumbral shroud to that cleric’s spell list.

Wouldn’t you consider the deity granted spells to be the same as if it said “Fireball?”

A cleric doesn’t have a way to prepare arcane spells at baseline either.

I will say one thing in Paizo's favor, this isn't the first time a rule has been used (or ignored) by virtually the entire community and they were not aware of it. Years ago Jason was surprised to find all the 1E bi-pedal animal companions wearing armor and wielding weapons. He wrote a blog to "correct" the intention of the rules. This seems to be a similar situation. Apparently at some point, org play leadership discovered that people were ignoring the intent of the cleric/druid spell access rules and had to clarify it.

If that is the case, I give them a pass from the perspective of just clarifying what the designer intent was. What I think most of us agree on, however, is it's a bad rule and should be errata.

A more recent one for me was the clarification by FAQ in 1E that bow enhancement bonus does not transfer to arrows. That rule was always that it did not. But the players played it like it did. A whole lot of gold gold was spent on adding increased enhancement bonus that no longer overcame certain DRs.

That was a pretty big eye opener!

A more recent one for me was the clarification by FAQ in 1E that bow enhancement bonus does not transfer to arrows.

Wow.

Apparently I stopped playing 1E just in time.

(ammunition and bypassing dr)That rule was always that it did not.

Much like the current situation, I think there’s a fair amount of disagreement that this is true.

Gary Bush wrote:

A more recent one for me was the clarification by FAQ in 1E that bow enhancement bonus does not transfer to arrows.

Wow.

Apparently I stopped playing 1E just in time.

Or too late.

Wouldn’t you consider the deity granted spells to be the same as if it said “Fireball?”

To be fair, my opinion doesn't really matter since I've already stated that the restriction rule is dumb and I do not adhere to it. So, yes, I would allow fireball but then again, I would allow penumbral shroud too. I can just see how someone would rule otherwise if they follow the CRB limitation of the cleric access.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Your specific class feature grants you explicit access. You shouldn’t have a problem.

Except what we're talking about isn't an access issue as defined by the CRB. You have access to all common spells from any book that is sanctioned. penumbral Shroud is a common spell. The issue is whether or not you get get it for free.

Yes, that was exactly my point; Access and "Able to be memorized by a specific character" are two different things.

In effect, the blog created a new tier of Access specifically for cleric and druid spells in Organized Play:

- Common (all common spells in the Core Rulebook): Free to all clerics and druids.
- Non-core (all common spells outside the Core Rulebook): Pay to learn each individual spell.
- Uncommon (all uncommon spells, no matter the source): Need explicit Access during creation or through a Chronicle Sheet.
- Rare (all rare spells, no matter the source): Need explicit Access through a Chronicle Sheet.

The fact that this new tier of Access only affects some spellcasters is even more puzzling.

Oh, that is a mess...

EDIT: You have no idea how sincerely I hate saying this, but the unintended consequences of this ruling are pushing me to the point where I've got to agree that this is not a rule I could enforce with a straight face.

Indeed.

It is not an enforceable rule. The player base is simply going to ignore it. While the designers may have had some reason to place the rule in, they did not create any in game rationale for it. It is just there and has been for a year with no one noticing it. Suddenly, our attention is drawn to it. Why now? Why not several months ago when the first Lost Omens book came out?

Also, apparently there is some serious confusion about how characters obtain spells as well regardless of the rules. This suggests a different problem exists regarding that. Maybe we need to clarify how each class acquires spells.

It is not an enforceable rule.

No more/less than most rules. Its not special in that respect.

Why now? Why not several months ago when the first Lost Omens book came out?

As has been stated, they were probably unaware that the community misinterpreted the rule. There are a few historical incidences of the designers intending one thing, but the majority of us interpreting the opposite. They may have only recently discovered this issue.

Jimmy Dick wrote:

It is not an enforceable rule.

No more/less than most rules. Its not special in that respect.

Except that it requires a full chronicle audit to check. It's more time consuming, especially once we consider that we need to know a spell isn't in the core book to even know to check.

Its no more/less enforceable than a wizard's spellbook. Like most of our rules it depends on a combination of good faith honesty, some level of rules mastery, a GM/organizer/VO interested in auditing, and having the time to do so.

I've had a lot of issues with PFS changes, bugs, and announcements of changes, but I actually appreciate this post, which gives a clear indication of the timeframes for these things occurring, and also overlaps periods for people who want to purchase boons they may have been saving for. Thank you for this.

Jimmy Dick wrote:

It is not an enforceable rule.

No more/less than most rules. Its not special in that respect.

Not in that respect, no. But it is special in that a fair few people think the rule very, very bad AND actually a change and not a clarification.

So there are already quite a few characters out there that break the rule (my cleric and druid break the rule) just because it IS new

And it raises other questions. I quite honestly do not know if I have to pay money for my non Core domain spells, for example.

Which makes it far more likely to be ignored. You have said you're planning on ignoring it and my impression is that you're more by the book than many GMs.

Gary Bush wrote:

(ammunition and bypassing dr)That rule was always that it did not.

Much like the current situation, I think there’s a fair amount of disagreement that this is true.

There may be disagreement but the declaration from "on high" is what the rule is.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

(ammunition and bypassing dr)That rule was always that it did not.

Much like the current situation, I think there’s a fair amount of disagreement that this is true.

There may be disagreement but the declaration from "on high" is what the rule is.

Declarations from on high changing rules and telling us it isn't a change are why a lot of people are upset.

The rule is bad. It is just not going to be followed. If we try to enforce it we are fighting a tidal wave of indifference or outright defiance of it. When you have a rule that is opposed by so many people the right thing to do is change the rule as long as it is not a rule that unbalances the game. Changing this rule will not unbalance the game.

The simple thing to do was to make all the spells in every source other than the CRB Uncommon and provide a means for accessing the spells. They did not do that. Instead, they put in another layer of rarity for accessing spells but didn't call it that.

It creates more book work for Clerics and Druids. It creates ambiguity for other caster classes. It pretty much creates a need for divine spellbooks. Either divine casters have access to common spells or they don't. This is saying they don't and that is just confusing a lot of players.

The goal of some of these revamps to OP was to make things simpler for players, to remove barriers for people interested in OP. This definitely does not do that.

Really, between this rule, the changes to faction/fame/boons, the mess with languages going on now, and the delays in releasing errata which should have been released six months ago, we are shooting ourselves in the feet. The Beginner Box is coming out soon. We need to be looking at how to connect that to OP via the Bounties.

Let's get this stuff resolved, reworded, and clarified so we are all on the same page and able to bring new players into OP. When this pandemic ends next year, we need to be in a position to get live play up and roaring quickly with the least possible number of barriers.

Gary Bush wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

(ammunition and bypassing dr)That rule was always that it did not.

Much like the current situation, I think there’s a fair amount of disagreement that this is true.

There may be disagreement but the declaration from "on high" is what the rule is.

Declarations from on high changing rules and telling us it isn't a change are why a lot of people are upset.

That's what's really got my goat here. I'm sick of Paizo calling errata FAQs. Happened last edition happening now, I don't care if it's a way around page count limits from errata, a goat is a goat, don't tell me it's a cow.

Oh, that is a mess...

EDIT: You have no idea how sincerely I hate saying this, but the unintended consequences of this ruling are pushing me to the point where I've got to agree that this is not a rule I could enforce with a straight face.

...and to be clear, I am going to enforce the rule upon myself (the version of the rule as I understand it because clearly a whole bunch of ambiguity just got injected into the game off-hand). However, I'm just going to go on trust that a cleric or druid has done what needs to be done to cast the spell they're casting. About the only circumstance that I would suspect a player might not have jumped through the hoops if I knew the character was brand new and cast a spell that I knew was not Core. But then the fix is worse than the "problem." I've got to stop the game and ask them if they paid for that spell. If they did not, then they're going to want to retcon a legal spell, so they've got to flip through the CRB. Now they've got an advantage in spell selection because they're basically spontaneously casting from the entire CRB list. Seriously? It is in my best interests to ignore this as a GM.

Gary Bush wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

(ammunition and bypassing dr)That rule was always that it did not.

Much like the current situation, I think there’s a fair amount of disagreement that this is true.

There may be disagreement but the declaration from "on high" is what the rule is.

Declarations from on high changing rules and telling us it isn't a change are why a lot of people are upset.

First, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just playing devil's advocate.

In thsi case, the problem with the "powers on high" is that it took them, what 7?? 8??, YEARS to re-enforce how the rule was to be applied. That is worth getting upset about. The rule was always the rule. They made no changes to the rule.

At least here we are only a little over a year in when a rule that a lot of people thought worked one way, one that is a greater benefit for us, is being "re-enforced" to be the rule as intended and written.

I am not saying there are not valid augments on fairness. But we really don't have much of a leg to stand on when we "thought" a rule works one way and it actually works a different way.

I guess I am saying that if we are going to challenge on how rules are interrupted, it needs to be on a different front than "but this is how I want it to mean" stump feet

We had an entire blog explaining what access means, only to now be told that access means something different in this one particular situation. Just because they aren't technically adding words to the book doesn't mean they aren't changing the rule.

It's the difference between saying "We didn't publish the rule that we meant to publish, so we're going to change it to be more clear" instead of saying "We published the rule, you just didn't understand what we meant." At least with language access Jared said it was a mistake to include the rule allowing access.

We had an entire blog explaining what access means, only to now be told that access means something different in this one particular situation. Just because they aren't technically adding words to the book doesn't mean they aren't changing the rule.

It's the difference between saying "We didn't publish the rule that we meant to publish, so we're going to change it to be more clear" instead of saying "We published the rule, you just didn't understand what we meant." At least with language access Jared said it was a mistake to include the rule allowing access.

The problem is with the language, it was a "GM decision" that was provided in error. The whole access to spells is in the rules, something that OP will tread very carefully when making a "GM decision" that is flat-out different than the rules as written and intended.

I guess I don't see the two as being similar.

It would help if they started by telling us what to do with the languages we took before the "mistake" was removed from the guide.

As far as the spells go. I still don't read the sentence in Cleric and Druid and interpret it as having anything to do with Learn a Spell or restricting Common spells outside of the CRB. If we did not have the statement from Tonya, then I would have no reason to think that it did. Because it says you can prepare spells you have access to, and there are no access conditions on (most) of the Common spells listed outside of the CRB. If I'm a Cleric worshipping a deity that grants true strike penumbral shroud (EDIT: Better example, since it's a non-CRB spell), that is granting me access to penumbral shroud. Instead of clarifying the language in the CRB to say that you have to use Learn a Spell, they changed the definition of access where spells are concerned.

At least here we are only a little over a year in when a rule that a lot of people thought worked one way, one that is a greater benefit for us, is being "re-enforced" to be the rule as intended and written.

I have no clue what was intended but I will continue to strongly claim that IF the new interpretation was always intended then Paizo really, really, really did a really bad job in its writing. Really.

I will also strongly claim that the new interpretation makes some things that were previously clear quite ambiguous.

In other words, Paizo screwed up. It's not totally clear how they screwed up but they did.

I have a right to be upset.

The fact that it took a year to judge it either way is part of the problem. Given the circumstances, many are growing impatient quicker.

The fact that it took a year to judge it either way is part of the problem. Given the circumstances, many are growing impatient quicker.

This is a broader problem with the world as a whole, not just our small little part of it. More and more, I believe it is generational, people believe they are entitled to the answer they want and when they want it. I am not making this statement to poke at anyone. For me, it is a statement of how I am seeing things play out.

While people may be growing impatient quicker, the responsiveness of the Paizo teams (Dev, OP) is improving. It is not "perfect" (will never be "perfect"), but it is getting better.

Our feedback is important. We all just need to temper how we express that feedback. A careless word or comment can, and will, obscure what was otherwise an excellent point.

One of my golden rules, learned the hard way by me, is "It does not matter what you said, what matters is what the other person heard."

Just to leave a message in counter to the "everyone hates it" narrative, I like it and can see where it may have been intended from the start.

It is a really healthy change for clerics and druids and is way better than if they had made other books uncommon with a way to gain access to uncommon spells (terrible suggestion).

As I have said elsewhere though, I would rather see them ditch "clerics and druids auto know heaps of spells" and just make them function like witches and wizards. Know a certain number of spells for free per level and then learn whatever else they need by using the learn a spell activity.

Even, balanced, doesn't overwhelm new players and doesn't create a weird feature creep for those classes. Second best solution is the CRB free spell only option that has been presented.

Given how the whole schtick is panning out, it's impossible to not be judgemental either way.

Paizo making errors during the process but which often are necessary evil (but sometimes could be avoidable), and on the other hand players need to accept they can't control everything. No one is entirely right or wrong, but on both sides, the whole problem could be handled better.

Everybody speaks in a different way and that's what causes problems. Asking people to be adaptive shouldn't be a F-word. The only real limit is whether any word spoken infringes the PFS guidelines. The fundamental discrepancy between that and the higher overall sensitivity of people is part of why tempers flare (too) fast.