How to update PFS characters to Year 2 format

TwilightKnight wrote:

The designers always intended for it to work this way

I have yet to find where a member of the design team explicitly stated that this was their intent, by the way. If you know something that I don't then by all means share.

Why do the designers have to say for every rule written that it was intended to function that? The design team may have foreseen the creative minds of the players. Or maybe they did. Either way, it should be the presumption that it was intended.

It is not unfair to suggest changes or seek additional guidance, but if you don't start from the foundation of "It is intended to work this way" we have the chaos on the boards with a small number of people DEMANDING answers.... That are not going to come, at least not very fast.

There is a process in place to address rule questions. It is not perfect. It is not fast. And it may not be what we want. But there is a process.

KingTreyIII wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

The designers always intended for it to work this way

I have yet to find where a member of the design team explicitly stated that this was their intent, by the way. If you know something that I don't then by all means share.

Why do the designers have to say for every rule written that it was intended to function that? The design team may have foreseen the creative minds of the players. Or maybe they did. Either way, it should be the presumption that it was intended.

It is not unfair to suggest changes or seek additional guidance, but if you don't start from the foundation of "It is intended to work this way" we have the chaos on the boards with a small number of people DEMANDING answers.... That are not going to come, at least not very fast.

There is a process in place to address rule questions. It is not perfect. It is not fast. And it may not be what we want. But there is a process.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that the design team needs to explicitly say something about every single rules question. I only said that they haven’t for this particular one, and thus we cannot say for certain that it WAS intended. However, as this entire thread has seemed to have indicated, going under the presumption that everything that was written was intended to be written that way leads down avenues of contradictions within the RAW that make it next to impossible to truly discern what the intent was.

My point wasn’t that the design team must step in at every unknown rules question, it was that we do not know that the design team “always intended for it to work this way.” I was merely pointing out that at the end of the day, it is a presumption, and we do not know for certain. And running under that presumption leads into a messy situation that does not have a clean solution unless someone from the design team comes in and starts talking about their intent with that particular clause.

There is a process in place to address rule questions. It is not perfect. It is not fast. And it may not be what we want. But there is a process.

What process? The one where designers issue errata on controversial rules after careful deliberation and almost intentionally avoid making off-hand rulings on items in forum posts specifically to avoid the kind of blow-back that comes from making guidance without thinking through the implications of such a change? The one that's remained quiet on farm more controversial rules for, what one might assume, is a sense of due diligence?

The one that we're not talking about here?

This isn't errata; it's a poorly communicated decision by campaign leadership. Given how silent they are on a thousand other things, which I don't blame them at all given how much else they have going on, I really have a hard time understanding what possessed this 'clarification' at all. Roll it back, think it through and try again; because even if this is where they want to land it's really badly integrated into other campaign guidance and, frankly, very reasonable interpretations of what the rules actually intend.

Why do the designers have to say for every rule written that it was intended to function that?

This particular rule is hardly the norm.

While I concede that the rule can be read in the "new" way I'd quite strongly claim that
1) it can much more easily be read the "old" way
2) a great many people DID read it the old way
3) it is VERY badly phrased if the intention is the "new" way
4) the "new" way leads to further questions which just don't arise with the "old" way. Ie, the "old" way was just more consistent
5)the "new" way is just worse. It overcomplicates things for little or no benefit.

Against all that we have a statement (received third hand) that it was the designers intent.

Now, I DO trust the two people saying it was the designers intent to be telling the truth as they know it. I don't think anyone is alleging any dishonesty.

But the ruling seems SO wrong to many of us that we think it at least possible that some miscommunication occurred. Hence the desire to hear from the designers.

Gary Bush wrote:

Why do the designers have to say for every rule written that it was intended to function that?

This particular rule is hardly the norm.

While I concede that the rule can be read in the "new" way I'd quite strongly claim that
1) it can much more easily be read the "old" way
2) a great many people DID read it the old way
3) it is VERY badly phrased if the intention is the "new" way
4) the "new" way leads to further questions which just don't arise with the "old" way. Ie, the "old" way was just more consistent
5)the "new" way is just worse. It overcomplicates things for little or no benefit.

Against all that we have a statement (received third hand) that it was the designers intent.

Now, I DO trust the two people saying it was the designers intent to be telling the truth as they know it. I don't think anyone is alleging any dishonesty.

But the ruling seems SO wrong to many of us that we think it at least possible that some miscommunication occurred. Hence the desire to hear from the designers.

Thank you person-more-eloquent-than-I at putting to words what's going on in my mind better than I ever could.

TwilightKnight wrote:

The designers always intended for it to work this way

I have yet to find where a member of the design team explicitly stated that this was their intent, by the way. If you know something that I don't then by all means share.

If you read Tonya’s comments, she asked the design team and that was their intent. We don’t then need a designer to post confirming her confirmation. The rule was published, most (or at least a large number) interpreted it incorrectly, she told us how it works. The only reason this is a problem is that a lot of people don’t like the rule. It is a change from how it worked in previous versions of the game. This is not an errata. This is no different than 1E when Jason discovered that people were playing their ape animal companions wielding weapons which was not the intent and he clarified it in a blog post.

KingTreyIII wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

The designers always intended for it to work this way

I have yet to find where a member of the design team explicitly stated that this was their intent, by the way. If you know something that I don't then by all means share.

If you read Tonya’s comments, she asked the design team and that was their intent. We don’t then need a designer to post confirming her confirmation. The rule was published, most (or at least a large number) interpreted it incorrectly, she told us how it works. The only reason this is a problem is that a lot of people don’t like the rule. It is a change from how it worked in previous versions of the game. This is not an errata. This is no different than 1E when Jason discovered that people were playing their ape animal companions wielding weapons which was not the intent and he clarified it in a blog post.

I presume you're referring to this comment (the only one in this particular thread where Tonya said something about the matter at hand)? If so, then she never said that she specifically asked the design team if this was their intent; if anything, she implied the opposite when she said that she would ask the design team to take a look at the thread that I started on this specific topic. Her comment, to me, read as such: “What’s written in the Core was made by the design team, not us [referring to the OPM], so if it says that clerics/druids/wizards [I mention wizards because this would also affect their free level-up spells to their spellbook] can only prepare from the Core, then that’s what it says, and we have to abide by that.”

Granted, there is always the possibility that I misunderstood what Tonya was trying to convey in this comment and that she was indeed trying to say that she asked the design team and that they said that this was their intent from the get-go, in which case I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Side note: this situation is different from the “apes wielding weapons” thing because at least in that circumstance it was Jason (AKA a member of the design team) who came out with the clarification, not someone who had relatively minimal say in how the Core was written (no offense, Tonya). And in that case there was an in-game, logical line of reasoning for why ape animal companions could not wield weapons; the only line of reasoning for this circumstance is "because that's what's written in the Core."

That’s a presumption of the org play team making rulings without consulting the design team, something they have expressed numerous times they avoid. In fact they won’t clarify most rules ambiguity that is not specifically org play for fear of people applying said ruling to the overall system. See battle medicine, the manipulate trait, etc. I’m sure someone can find the links, but I believe she posted at some point after lengthy community discussion doubling down on the ruling.

Let’s not make this into a “mom told me no, so I’ll go ask dad.”

Then let Tonya come back in and clearly state that this was, in fact, a decision made with design team input. I read her statements the same as KingTreyIII and all subsequent statements by people like yourself that "This has been clarified by the design" team to be based only on the less clear statements by Tonya.

Benefit of the doubt is all fine and good, but this ruling, as laid out above seems to fly in the face of good sense, rules president, and a spirit of simplicity. I think it's fair to focus on that and interrogate whether this is correct or not.
Lots of companies are struggling to communicate effectively in the COVID era, especially within companies who traditionally worked in the same offices. I see it in my own company. I can 100% see it being at fault here and that's okay, but they should be open to relooking at it.

Re rules precedent.

In every other case, to take something from a new book, one has to give up something, spell slots, gold, feats, etc.

In the case of Druids and Clerics the players receive an immediate power boost in exchange for real world money.

Pathfinder Society has consistently been highly allergic to anything that even *looks* like "Pay to advance."

Also, if you want the Dev and Design to revisit this idea, you need to ask about it in the rules forum. Dev and Design don't read the PFS forum, and nothing said here will do anything about the ruling.

Re rules precedent.

In every other case, to take something from a new book, one has to give up something, spell slots, gold, feats, etc.

Wizards and sorcerers pay the same cost to get an option from the APG that they pay to get an option from the CRB. Clerics and Druids now have an extra cost beyond their cost to use spells from the CRB that other classes aren't having to pay.

In the case of Druids and Clerics the players receive an immediate power boost in exchange for real world money.

Pathfinder Society has consistently been highly allergic to anything that even *looks* like "Pay to advance."

Given that for 11+ years of 1E clerics and druids being able to prepare spells from new books was not considered pay to advance, I don't think that's really an issue of concern here, and I don't believe that claim was anywhere in the justification that was given.

Re rules precedent.

In every other case, to take something from a new book, one has to give up something, spell slots, gold, feats, etc.

In the case of Druids and Clerics the players receive an immediate power boost in exchange for real world money.

Pathfinder Society has consistently been highly allergic to anything that even *looks* like "Pay to advance."

Also, if you want the Dev and Design to revisit this idea, you need to ask about it in the rules forum. Dev and Design don't read the PFS forum, and nothing said here will do anything about the ruling.

Uh, the cleric and druid have to give up spell slots to use the new spells which is on your list.

Presumably the new spells are balanced by their level. Just like new equipment is balanced by their price. And new feats are balanced by their levels and prerequisites of course. Why should spells be balanced by BOTH the opportunity cost AND having to pay cash? New feats aren't.

And while I think the power creep is currently very, very mild it certainly exists as much in the feats and focus spells (Warden) as it does in the cleric and druid spells

Jared Thaler wrote:

Re rules precedent.

In every other case, to take something from a new book, one has to give up something, spell slots, gold, feats, etc.

Wizards and sorcerers pay the same cost to get an option from the APG that they pay to get an option from the CRB. Clerics and Druids now have an extra cost beyond their cost to use spells from the CRB that other classes aren't having to pay.

Or to flip that the other way, "Druids and clerics get all the core rule book spells for free, but now have to pay the same cost wizards do to take a spell from outside the core rulebook."

Given that for 11+ years of 1E clerics and druids being able to prepare spells from new books was not considered pay to advance, I don't think that's really an issue of concern here...

Perhaps it should have been.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

Re rules precedent.

In every other case, to take something from a new book, one has to give up something, spell slots, gold, feats, etc.

Wizards and sorcerers pay the same cost to get an option from the APG that they pay to get an option from the CRB. Clerics and Druids now have an extra cost beyond their cost to use spells from the CRB that other classes aren't having to pay.

Or to flip that the other way, "Druids and clerics get all the core rule book spells for free, but now have to pay the same cost wizards do to take a spell from outside the core rulebook."

But Clerics and Druids being able to prepare all of the spells on their list is already built into their class design. It's not really something you can compare in that way. What's been added is a restriction that depends on the real world placement of where things are published, not anything in game. That's why it stands out.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Given that for 11+ years of 1E clerics and druids being able to prepare spells from new books was not considered pay to advance, I don't think that's really an issue of concern here...

Perhaps it should have been.

Possibly, but that doesn't change that it was not seen as an issue in the past. If there are vast threads of people discussing it from 1E and how it was bad for the game, then I missed them. Clerics and Druids gain no more power from buying a new book than any other class, because how they prepare spells is baked into the design of the classes. Instituting the rule now, however, has created some problems that do depend on which books you own, because a class published in the APG doesn't have the same restriction as a class published in the CRB. It's turned something that wasn't a meta problem into a meta problem.

If clerics and druids functioning differently from wizards was seen as an issue, then the change to be made would have been to have them select spells known from the beginning in a similar way to Wizards adding them to their spell book.

Actually, there are plenty of people that have pointed to the cleric/druid list being fully accessible as one of their strongest points, to the point of disrupting the game. So yes, SOME people saw it as an issue. I believe they were shouted down during playtesting.

Actually, there are plenty of people that have pointed to the cleric/druid list being fully accessible as one of their strongest points, to the point of disrupting the game. So yes, SOME people saw it as an issue. I believe they were shouted down during playtesting.

Links?

Expanding options IS gaining power, in their eyes. I'll see if I can find the old posts.

Wow, it's like deja vu.

Expanding options IS gaining power, in their eyes. I'll see if I can find the old posts.

Arguing that Clerics and Druids getting all of the spells on their list in general is an issue is a different discussion than arguing that it's an issue because they can access all of the spells in new books. I could have seen 2E going away from those classes automatically getting their whole lists. They didn't do that. The issue now is that the method they've chosen to limit it is dependent on an out of game real world thing and not anything in the systems they have set up in game.

Wow, it's like deja vu.

That's a good find. It still doesn't convince me that this was seen as a big issue, since it's a single thread. Making my way through the links to see the history of the discussion.

I was more amused at the exact same discussion about non-Core spells coming up. That time they at least had developer statements resolving it clearly, even if it was opposite what we have now.

I was more amused at the exact same discussion about non-Core spells coming up. That time they at least had developer statements resolving it clearly, even if it was opposite what we have now.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that the question was asked at some point, and it is a little amusing. I stand by my stance that it wasn't seen as a major issue affecting the game, but I'll qualify it by saying in a large enough way to spark extended conversations about it (like so many other things did). What we've been given is a solution looking for a problem.

My biggest takeaway from that thread is that the designer comments support the idea that, at least at that time, we weren't supposed to be taking something like a reference to a chapter in the CRB so literally as we are now apparently supposed to take it.

They have said that part of PF2 is having a chance to go back and look at the various decisions they have made over the years, and get a do over on some of them.

So it would seem in this case that is one of the things they wanted to go back and do differently in retrospect.

They have said that part of PF2 is having a chance to go back and look at the various decisions they have made over the years, and get a do over on some of them.

So it would seem in this case that is one of the things they wanted to go back and do differently in retrospect.

Which is fair enough, but we need a much better explanation to know how it's supposed to affect everything else in the game that uses similar references. As has been pointed out several times in this discussion (edit: not sure if it's int this thread or one of the others), there are far more questions now than there were before the clarification was given.

Dev and Design don't read the PFS forum, and nothing said here will do anything about the ruling.

So it would seem in this case that is one of the things they wanted to go back and do differently in retrospect.

100% disagree with you here, because there is no Dev or Design ruling here: we have a statement from campaign leadership that they're choosing to interpret the text in the most literal RAW way possible. This is a local decision to adjudicate a rules dispute.

As Game Master, it falls on you to adjudicate the rules. This means you’re making judgments and decisions about the rules, especially when their application is unclear. Roleplaying games encourage creativity, and however well crafted and well tested a set of rules is, players will always find situations that require interpretation and judgment by the GM.

You need at least some familiarity with the rules to run a game well. But you don’t need to be the foremost expert on the rules. You don’t even need to know the most about the rules at your table to be a great GM! There’s a key difference between “knowing” the rules and “adjudicating” the rules.

While GMing, strive to make quick, fair, and consistent rulings. Your rulings should encourage your group to work together to interpret the rules and to be creative with their characters’ decisions and actions. If your group is satisfied with the interpretation, you’ve made the right adjudication!

This ruling is neither quick, nor fair, nor consistent with past adjudication on access and rarity.

Is it quick? No.
* There have been several books before the APG which increased spell access beyond the CRB.
* Gods and Magic notably deals specifically with the classes called out (clerics in particular)

Is it fair? No.
* Classes in the APG lack the language restricting or requiring this expansion beyond the spells in the CRB. This means that even a strict reading makes them treated differently.
* Only Druids and Clerics are called out by this ruling despite every other class in the CRB having the same language. The strictest reading of this rule requires that Sorcerers, Bards, etc also Learn a Spell prior to them adding it to their spell list, even if it's a common spell, or an uncommon spell to which they have earned access.

Is it consistent? No.
* The Character Options Blog outlines very specifically how access works in PFS, adding in the Standard, Limited, and Restricted categories. Notably:

These options follow the standard rules as printed in their respective sourcebooks.

* The Character Option blog has so far stated that most spells from most books "are of standard availability unless specifically noted otherwise" meaning they are common.

This rarity indicates that an ability, item, or spell is available to all players who meet the prerequisites for it.

* If the above statements are true (and they are), this ruling is inconsistent with the above because it makes common spells from sources beyond the CRB uncommon with a unique access condition (Learn a Spell from the Grand Lodge).

There's a very reasonable reading of these rules that doesn't require Learn a Spell for common availability spells. The choice to ignore that ruling is a choice being made at our campaign level. Hiding behind the designers here is a weird choice, but it is a choice. Your statements about designers intent to redo a choice about access is just another indirect way to hide behind the fact that they're still silent on this matter. Until they step out and say something, this is and remains a campaign choice and even if they do come out and say something, the campaign retains the ability to override and adjudicate the best way for it to operate.

The other thread that has all of the arguments in it was locked back on Oct 7 since and hasn't been reopened.

Pathfinder Society has consistently been highly allergic to anything that even *looks* like "Pay to advance."

Separately, this is a terrible argument, and if it was true then none of us should be required to purchase any Paizo content after it's added to the Character Options blog and as long as it's on Archives of Nethys.

There is and always will be a significant incentive to purchasing books to gain access to options and the "you need to bring the rules along" is mostly a fig leaf for the fact that Org Play is a vehicle to help drive Paizo book sales.

That's okay, mind you, I do think we should have to buy books to support the company. But that also means you can't really use this argument here when there's a decade plus of precedent outside the spell argument. We're all *constantly* buying access to new things just by buying a new rulebook.

Cavern shark, the premise of your posts is that this rule does not come from the design team. And that this is a rule change PFS has made and that they are "hiding behind" the design team.

I advise you to reevaluate that premis and see how it changes your assumptions.

I don't personally like how the design team is handling this, but your assumptions do not seem to accurately reflect the facts I am aware of.

Jared Thaler wrote:

Pathfinder Society has consistently been highly allergic to anything that even *looks* like "Pay to advance."

Separately, this is a terrible argument, and if it was true then none of us should be required to purchase any Paizo content after it's added to the Character Options blog and as long as it's on Archives of Nethys.

Again, you are *vastly* oversimplifying this to a yes / no proposition.

The fact that PFS *does* incentivize book sales is part of the reason they worry so much about the idea that buying books gives you power.

For example. There is a high level scenario where a single spell in a certain add on book essentially guarantees success on the primary success condition.

Consider two tables next to each other, each has a druid who can cast the spell.

One table has the $15 dollars for the PDF, the othe does not. The table without the $15 dollars fails.

No, this rule won't prevent *all* instances of that from happening. But it will at least reduce the frequency and thus reduce the accusations.

The reasons you cited for why you feel this is a bad rule are guiding objectives, they are not overriding mandates. They need to be balanced against other needs. The fact that you do not perceive those needs to have any weight does not mean that they can be dismissed.

No, the premise of my posts is that regardless of what the design team did or didn't intend, this is a decision that campaign leadership has made and can thus unmake.

If this rule was intended to be the way Tonya's ruled, it's poorly written and needs adjudication -- a lot of it -- across a number of cases that it opens up that have no clear or consistent answers.

If this rule wasn't intended to be the way Tonya's ruled, then this ruling is even worse and creates even more conflict / restrictions than should exist.

You have just as much information about what the design team intended at this point unless you're privy to some direct communication from the design team. So unless you'd like to share that, your assumptions about design intent on this subject are just about as useful as anyone else's here.

Which leaves us all arguing with campaign leadership about what the right answer *for the campaign* is.

cavernshark wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

Pathfinder Society has consistently been highly allergic to anything that even *looks* like "Pay to advance."

Separately, this is a terrible argument, and if it was true then none of us should be required to purchase any Paizo content after it's added to the Character Options blog and as long as it's on Archives of Nethys.

Again, you are *vastly* oversimplifying this to a yes / no proposition.

The fact that PFS *does* incentivize book sales is part of the reason they worry so much about the idea that buying books gives you power.

For example. There is a high level scenario where a single spell in a certain add on book essentially guarantees success on the primary success condition.

Consider two tables next to each other, each has a druid who can cast the spell.

One table has the $15 dollars for the PDF, the othe does not. The table without the $15 dollars fails.

No, this rule won't prevent *all* instances of that from happening. But it will at least reduce the frequency and thus reduce the accusations.

The reasons you cited for why you feel this is a bad rule are guiding objectives, they are not overriding mandates. They need to be balanced against other needs. The fact that you do not perceive those needs to have any weight does not mean that they can be dismissed.

I'm familiar with the scenario and the spell. My table had no druid and managed just fine, so maybe don't lecture on oversimplification. The spell helps but it's not required. The fact that it "auto-succeeds" on the the primary success condition speaks more to the quality of the scenario than the power of the spell itself which will generally never see use outside of a very narrow set of circumstances. In fact, a druid likely wouldn't prepare it at all outside of an explicit task requiring it. Show me the data that suggests that this scenario specifically has a below average success rate on the primary success condition without that spell. Otherwise I can't eye roll at this argument any harder.

If a druid 'Learned a Spell' on one situational spell on the 3rd level list outside of the CRB that might never see use on every scenario between hitting level 5 until they can learn level 4 spells, it will basically cost them 14.4% of their wealth assuming they get every single treasure bundle -- which is something that has been stated isn't to be expected. They don't get free spells on level up otherwise.

This ruling doesn't make the solve on that scenario any more difficult. It just makes people who haven't taken the time to buy books and aggressively learn spells feel even s&@%tier when they show up to the table and the other players hopefully ask our hypothetical druid if they've learned the "super awesome spell."

[Edit] This is no different than players who make a Pathfinder Spellmaster using the original publication vs. those who use later expansions on the archetypes. Those Spellmasters will be inferior to those who buy the LOPFG and get access to a whole host of new feats for the Pathfinder Agent archetype and the Spellmaster archetype. For "free" other than the cost of admission of buying the book.

Show me the data that suggests that this scenario specifically has a below average success rate on the primary success...

Have you read the GM thread for that scenario? Half of the questions in there are "if my party doesn't have this spell, how are they ever supposed to succeed?"

No, the premise of my posts is that regardless of what the design team did or didn't intend, this is a decision that campaign leadership has made and can thus unmake.

If this rule was intended to be the way Tonya's ruled, it's poorly written and needs adjudication -- a lot of it -- across a number of cases that it opens up that have no clear or consistent answers.

If this rule wasn't intended to be the way Tonya's ruled, then this ruling is even worse and creates even more conflict / restrictions than should exist.

You have just as much information about what the design team intended at this point unless you're privy to some direct communication from the design team. So unless you'd like to share that, your assumptions about design intent on this subject are just about as useful as anyone else's here.

Which leaves us all arguing with campaign leadership about what the right answer *for the campaign* is.

No. Campaign leadership can fill rules gaps. They cannot reverse design rulings. (Just like PFS GMs can fill rules gaps, but can't override leadership rulings.)

Tonya's post said this ruling cam directly from the design team, design team stated it is an integral part of the game. It therefore cannot be overruled by PFS.

And if I were privy to some information beyond that, I would be unable to do more than obliquely hint at it. (Welcome to the world of NDAs...)

Tonya's post said this ruling cam directly from the design team, design team stated it is an integral part of the game. It therefore cannot be overruled by PFS.

It most certainly does not. I linked it up thread. You're casually ignoring what Tonya actually says and what you think she's saying by superimposing words and meaning that fit your narrative onto it.

For Learn A Spell - the restrictions as written in the CRB are produced by the Pathfinder (second edition) design team and an integral part of the game. OP issuing Learn a Spell is us acting as GM in saying "this is how you get other things in our campaign". Changing the CRB is not OP's balliwick, though adjusting Learn a Spell to accommodate errata is. But until there is a change to the CRB, Learn a Spell confers the ability to choose options outside the CRB.

Thank you KingTreyIII for starting a thread. I will ask the Pathfinder design team to look at it.

Tonya literally says this is an OP guidance on how to gain access. It does not speak at all to a prior conversation with the design team; if anything in suggests that she may reach out to them in the future. And to most people reading it (at least as many who reached out to Tonya about this issue in the first place given the lack of specificity), it looks like a new way to gain access given that we already have the Character Options blog which outlines how we gain access to things.

You've challenged me to reassess my assumptions, but I'd suggest you really inspect what's actually been said to this point before making broad statements. If this ruling is final, then we're owed some explanation answering all of the problems it creates. Forgive me if this strict adherence to CRB is a little is laughable when in the same guide update I had to inform you of the fact that core classes are designed to easily have both familiars and animal companions in spite of the Org Play rule against having both, going so far as to cite CRB pages, in order to adjust some half-baked rule about companion counts.

I'm more than a little concerned that you're arguing that this isn't the exact place to argue that this Org Play guidance is wrong. There's literally no where else I'm aware of where we can / should have this discussion. Access is and always has been a GM decision practice and that's the only word cited in the guidance on this spell issue.

cavernshark wrote:

Show me the data that suggests that this scenario specifically has a below average success rate on the primary success...

Have you read the GM thread for that scenario? Half of the questions in there are "if my party doesn't have this spell, how are they ever supposed to succeed?"

Don't you think that maybe the issue is with the scenario itself then? Imagine if the spell didn't exist at all. By your logic (that it's the spell broken) and small sample size (people in that thread), if we locked the spell, there'd be even more complaining about the scenario.

Here is my question for the spell for the cleric/druid issue.

How does one learn a spell without a spellbook? Would one need to learn this spell every-time it is prepared, or need to learn it again for multiple castings? Where does the gold go to when the spell is learned from prayer?

So many questions....

For me, the access to the spells should be as it was in PF1, where clerics could access "common" spells. It should not matter where the spell is actually found in the rule books for the game, the character isn't concerned with CRB vs. APG. Do wizards need to only get their free spells from the CRB, or do they enjoy special privileges?

This seems to be an oversight, not a rules variation between classes.

For me, the access to the spells should be as it was in PF1, where clerics could access "common" spells. It should not matter where the spell is actually found in the rule books for the game, the character isn't concerned with CRB vs. APG.

I am sorry you feel that way, and certainly you are allowed to do whatever you want in your home game.

But the design team has apparently told Tonya that is not how they envision that working, so that is not an option for PFS.

Here is my question for the spell for the cleric/druid issue.

How does one learn a spell without a spellbook?

The same way a cleric would learn an uncommon spell. Or any other class that does not have a spell book. Given that Learn a spell can be used with Primal or Religious traditions, which as far as I know never have spell books, it is pretty clear that "Learn a spell" is not limited to spellbooks.

Would one need to learn this spell every-time it is prepared, or need to learn it again for multiple castings?

No. No class functions like that and they never even implied that was the case.

Where does the gold go to when the spell is learned from prayer?

Probably incense for special meditations, paying a fellow cleric for taking the time teaching it to you, special offerings to the source of your power.

Do wizards need to only get their free spells from the CRB.

Given the explanation of the language, I would say that certainly seems implied. My wizards are taking all their free spells from the CRB until this is sorted out, just in case.

Jared Thaler wrote:

cavernshark wrote:

Show me the data that suggests that this scenario specifically has a below average success rate on the primary success...

Have you read the GM thread for that scenario? Half of the questions in there are "if my party doesn't have this spell, how are they ever supposed to succeed?"

Don't you think that maybe the issue is with the scenario itself then? Imagine if the spell didn't exist at all. By your logic (that it's the spell broken) and small sample size (people in that thread), if we locked the spell, there'd be even more complaining about the scenario.

I didn't say the spell is broken. It is a niche spell that does a cool thing. But as you add more niche spells, the class with the lowest access cost gets a powerful boost. So they are trying to even out the access cost.

I would say the scenario is certainly harder than (I think) it was intended to be. But maybe that is how they meant it to be? It is definitely a scenario that drives you to have to compensate for something that people often use as a sort of "dump stat"

You seem to be trying to drive the things I am saying to some black and white, either / or extreme. I am not interested in playing that game. This is a nuanced situation, and I chose my words to mean what I said.

Adding the broad range of spells, with very low opportunity cost, has been something that people have been complaining about for 8 years, as demonstrated by the thread someone linked earlier. The design team has decided they want to do things differently.

Blaming the PFS leadership for the Design team's decision, or trying to come up with doomsday scenarios is not going to sway the design team. (Especially not since you are posting in the PFS forum, and they rarely read this forum.)

Given the fact that the design team has decided this, which Tonya appears to have confirmed, we are stuck with the rule. So lets talk about how we make the rule work, not how we don't like it.

"the restrictions as written in the CRB are produced by the Pathfinder (second edition) design team and an integral part of the game. "

The design team passed the restriction down to Tonya and told her they were not optional. As far as PFS goes, that is the end of the argument.

One person asking a question 8 years ago is not “people have been complaining about for 8 years.” You can look at any aspect of the game and find someone within the last 8-10 years that’s had some problem with it. That thread had fewer posts in it than an average Tuesday in something like the battle medicine thread (or going back to 1E armor spikes). It was very, very low on the list of potential problems.

Tonya does say in her post that using Learn a Spell was an organized play decision until there is an errata by the designers. As we have seen time and time again with rulings pending errata, there is no guarantee that the errata will ultimately match up with that ruling. The designers have been very clear in the past about what is an official ruling from them, and we don’t have one of those. We have an official ruling from organized play based on their conversations with the designers. There is a difference between those two things.

Tonya wrote:

"the restrictions as written in the CRB are produced by the Pathfinder (second edition) design team and an integral part of the game. "

The design team passed the restriction down to Tonya and told her they were not optional. As far as PFS goes, that is the end of the argument.

You’re ignoring the next sentence. “ OP issuing Learn a Spell is us acting as GM in saying "this is how you get other things in our campaign". ”

Then let Tonya come back in and clearly state that this was, in fact, a decision made with design team input

Sheesh, dance for me monkey boy. That’s incredibly elitist. If you know anything about org play, she would not have published a decision based on the core rules without consulting the design team, but even if she didn’t, she said the second time that this is the rule. While we can argue about whether or not we like it, the rule is what it is.

What we can ask for is clarification about what else this affects.

Does this only affect the Druid and Cleric, or does it also prevent other CRB classes from selecting spells from outside the CRB as starting spells or free spells when they gain a level?

If the other CRB classes can’t select spells from outside the CRB, are witch and oracle exempt from that since they don’t have the limiting language?

What do players do who may have characters who bought wands and scrolls with spells from outside the CRB that they now don’t have access to? Can they just learn a spell and keep the wands/scrolls? Can they sell them back a full cost? Or do they have to sell them back half cost and buy them again when they learn the spell?

Are spells on your spell list for activating scrolls and wands if you have not learned them yet?

Should we assume everytime that something references pages in the CRB that it means the CRB only? (This is relevant to the discussion on home region)

I haven’t compiled all of the questions, but there are many of them that could use further clarification. So even if they aren’t going to reconsider the ruling, it would be helpful if this isn’t the last that the campaign says on it.

Jared Thaler wrote:

Tonya wrote:

"the restrictions as written in the CRB are produced by the Pathfinder (second edition) design team and an integral part of the game. "

The design team passed the restriction down to Tonya and told her they were not optional. As far as PFS goes, that is the end of the argument.

You’re ignoring the next sentence. “ OP issuing Learn a Spell is us acting as GM in saying "this is how you get other things in our campaign". ”

Yes. The alternative is "There is not currently a way for Druids or Clerics to gain access to those spells."

What we can ask for is clarification about what else this affects.

Does this only affect the Druid and Cleric, or does it also prevent other CRB classes from selecting spells from outside the CRB as starting spells or free spells when they gain a level?

If the other CRB classes can’t select spells from outside the CRB, are witch and oracle exempt from that since they don’t have the limiting language?

What do players do who may have characters who bought wands and scrolls with spells from outside the CRB that they now don’t have access to? Can they just learn a spell and keep the wands/scrolls? Can they sell them back a full cost? Or do they have to sell them back half cost and buy them again when they learn the spell?

Are spells on your spell list for activating scrolls and wands if you have not learned them yet?

Should we assume everytime that something references pages in the CRB that it means the CRB only? (This is relevant to the discussion on home region)

I haven’t compiled all of the questions, but there are many of them that could use further clarification. So even if they aren’t going to reconsider the ruling, it would be helpful if this isn’t the last that the campaign says on it.

Those are all really good questions.

But I doubt we will get anywhere with people shouting about how they need to take the ruling back.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

Tonya wrote:

"the restrictions as written in the CRB are produced by the Pathfinder (second edition) design team and an integral part of the game. "

The design team passed the restriction down to Tonya and told her they were not optional. As far as PFS goes, that is the end of the argument.

You’re ignoring the next sentence. “ OP issuing Learn a Spell is us acting as GM in saying "this is how you get other things in our campaign". ”

Yes. The alternative is "There is not currently a way for Druids or Clerics to gain access to those spells."

That is an alternative. Another would be that the sanctioning blog grants access, which is what we had prior to this blog. Point being that it’s a decision by the org play team about org play, so it’s appropriate to discuss it here, in the thread for the blog in which they made that ruling.

Jared Thaler wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

Tonya wrote:

"the restrictions as written in the CRB are produced by the Pathfinder (second edition) design team and an integral part of the game. "

The design team passed the restriction down to Tonya and told her they were not optional. As far as PFS goes, that is the end of the argument.

You’re ignoring the next sentence. “ OP issuing Learn a Spell is us acting as GM in saying "this is how you get other things in our campaign". ”

Yes. The alternative is "There is not currently a way for Druids or Clerics to gain access to those spells."

That is an alternative. Another would be that the sanctioning blog grants access, which is what we had prior to this blog. Point being that it’s a decision by the org play team about org play, so it’s appropriate to discuss it here, in the thread for the blog in which they made that ruling.

Jared's too busy telling us the alternative to this ruling was that druids and clerics were previously unable to learn spells outside of the core rulebook, while simultaneously telling us that druids who could cast a specific spell outside of the core rulebook are overpowered because they break a scenario, which is why this ruling needed to be made.

Both of these statements can't be true, and yet here we are. The sheer volume of problems this ruling creates vs. those it solves is baffling. I want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but it's really striking how narrowly we're being asked to interpret the words 'and to other spells which you have access' when 'access' been such a central concept used in the game and in PFS as evidenced by entire blogs to this effect.

Cavern shark, no one is saying you should have known or been able to anticipate this ruling. You keep harping on that, but it is a straw man.

And I never said Druids or Clerics were "overpowered because they break a scenario"

I said, "Allowing all clerics to take all spells simply by buying the book is a significant power increase that they did not want to allow."

I didn't say "this ruling need to be made" I said "this is the ruling that the design team chose to make." You have made it very clear that you think it is a bad ruling, but that isn't something PFS has any power over.

Ferious Thune, "Clerics and Druids can freely take spells from other books just like they can take core rulebooks spells" is the exact ruling that the design team clarified was wrong. As such that rule is a non starter. Whatever we do, it can't be that.

What do players do who may have characters who bought wands and scrolls with spells from outside the CRB that they now don’t have access to? Can they just learn a spell and keep the wands/scrolls? Can they sell them back a full cost? Or do they have to sell them back half cost and buy them again when they learn the spell?

Uhhhh...

Ferious Thune wrote:

What do players do who may have characters who bought wands and scrolls with spells from outside the CRB that they now don’t have access to? Can they just learn a spell and keep the wands/scrolls? Can they sell them back a full cost? Or do they have to sell them back half cost and buy them again when they learn the spell?

Uhhhh...

1) You still have access and hilariously can use them still.
2) Yes though Im not sure about wands. I know two APs gave uncommon spells out as scrolls so yes for that.
3) Your going to need them to learn and can still use them so I'm guessing no.

While I think those are the likely answers, I don’t think they are clear now. You don’t actually need the scroll to learn the spell, because we can now learn them from someone or a source at the grand lodge.