How to update PFS characters to Year 2 format

I just realized that this whole thing would explain why scenarios were giving out lvl 1 scrolls of spells from outside the core rulebook.

Before the ruling that you could find someone at the grand lodge to teach you, that would have been the only way to get those spells for some casters.

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.

Much like you pointed out to cavernshark that you said something different than he claimed, I’ll point out that I did not say what you claim I said. The sanctioning blog can and does include plenty of restrictions, so anything that is an issue for the campaign could be restricted there. That is how things worked for over a year and until this blog there was no obvious indication it was an issue.

The campaign leadership can make any ruling that they feel is good for the campaign, and there are plenty of instances where that differs from the standard rules. I’m sure that’s what they did here, which is their right to do whether I or anyone else agrees with the decision. But they do have the ability to make a different decision. There aren’t only two choices.

I didn't say you said anything. I made a statement of fact.

The leadership can make any ruling that affects gaps in the rules.

They can chose whichever optional rules elements they want to include.

They *cannot* change core rules of the game.

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

There aren't only two choices. But the choice you want them to make is the one choice they literally can't make.

They *cannot* change core rules of the game

Sure they can, they just choose not to. It’s not like we don’t have precedent of them changing core rules for this specific campaign. One need only look at how evil spells worked in 1E to see that sometimes org play changes core rules. Though we agree in principle that they shouldn’t change core rules because it almost always creates rules conflicts and/or exploits that wouldn’t exist if we just followed the core rules.

For me, I really just wish they'd waited for a proper errata to come out so we wouldn't have had all this. For me, the current text of the rules for the way clerics and druids prepared spells was clear - if you have access, you can prepare it. (And you have access to Common APG spells per Character Options blog)

While I understand the ruling, and the arguments that it could be read one way or the other, for the casual user it makes access suddenly a very muddy and unclear topic, since it means there are now two different meanings for the rules term access, one of which is specific to prepared spellcasters.

I hope the CRB errata comes out soon and clears this mess up to the satisfaction of everyone.

I hope the CRB errata comes out soon and clears this mess up to the satisfaction of everyone.

Oh you sweet summer child...

No matter what the errata says I expect the forusm will burn.

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.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked the question why. That is not putting words into your mouth.

Until the design team comes out otherwise, with a FAQ or errata, the rule as written is how they intended it work.

Agree, communication from the design team will be beneficial. But what happens if that does not happen for while? Or at all? Than the rule is intended as the designers wrote it.

For me, I really just wish they'd waited for a proper errata to come out so we wouldn't have had all this. For me, the current text of the rules for the way clerics and druids prepared spells was clear - if you have access, you can prepare it. (And you have access to Common APG spells per Character Options blog)

While I understand the ruling, and the arguments that it could be read one way or the other, for the casual user it makes access suddenly a very muddy and unclear topic, since it means there are now two different meanings for the rules term access, one of which is specific to prepared spellcasters.

I hope the CRB errata comes out soon and clears this mess up to the satisfaction of everyone.

Or, there is *one* version of access. And a single place in the rulebook, they *misused the term*.

Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. This is not Legal Hermeneutics.

Jared Thaler wrote:

They *cannot* change core rules of the game

Sure they can, they just choose not to. It’s not like we don’t have precedent of them changing core rules for this specific campaign. One need only look at how evil spells worked in 1E to see that sometimes org play changes core rules. Though we agree in principle that they shouldn’t change core rules because it almost always creates rules conflicts and/or exploits that wouldn’t exist if we just followed the core rules.

No dev came in and said "No, evil spells always change your alignment." If they had, PFS would have needed to adapt. The detailed rules for spells shifting your alignment was in the GMG, and there were plenty of other things that would shift them back.

In fact, when this was being discussed, people pointed out that since there is unlimited down time in PFS, you could just go cast a good spell during downtime for every evil spell you cast during play. (And maybe a few extra.)

James Jacobs (yes, we know he is technically not a “rules guy”) said very plainly that using an evil spell is always evil. Period. PFS decided to allow some evil spells like animate dead and especially Infernal healing without the evil stigma. So he’s, the intent by the Paizo team, call them developers, designers, whatever was that evil spells were evil. It was the org play/developers who deviated from the core for PFS. They could do the same thing again in 2E, but they are choosing not to. Given that I was not in favor of the evil deviation in 1E, I am glad org play is sticking to core. It’s just that we were not aware that the designers intended spell access to be as Tonya clarified. Given the history of Pathfinder 1E and v3.5 I think the designers had a bit of a responsibility to point out the change in rules from previous versions, especially since the latter half of the rule would seem to indicate the same level of access we are used to.

...

They *cannot* change core rules of the game.

...

If no rarity appears in the traits of an item, spell, or other game element, it is of common rarity. Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM, while unique ones are literally one-of-a-kind in the game. The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items to suit the story they want to tell.

Standard: Standard availability just means that the option’s rarity for Organized Play is unchanged from the rarity printed in its sourcebook. If the option is common in the sourcebook, that means it’s common for Pathfinder Society, so you can take it as-is (assuming you meet all the usual prerequisites). If the option is uncommon in the sourcebook, that means it’s uncommon for Pathfinder Society, so you need to gain access to it somehow (see below for more on that!). Almost all options are standard availability unless otherwise stated.

According to the 'core rules of the game', Clerics and Druids have access to the common spells...

We have literally had this explained to us.

Now we have a ruling that it is in violation of that explanation.

A common spell of Standard availability, according to the Character Options blog and the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog can be taken "as is."

~

That said, since the Organized Play Team has made this ruling, we MUST abide by it. It is part of the 'price' we pay to play in the Campaign.

~

I will continue to request that this change be added to the Character Options blog so that new players and those that don't spend their time digging through the blogs/forums will know of this change and be able to abide by it.

Until the design team comes out otherwise, with a FAQ or errata, the rule as written is how they intended it work.

I know that I'm harping on the same point but I can't help myself.

I have (reluctantly) come to the conclusion that the words as written CAN be read in the new way.

But it is utterly and completely absurd and flat out false to say that is the ONLY way that the words could be interpreted. And a great deal of evidence (See all the threads) indicates that the new way is a far less likely reading of the words than the old way. And leads to a significant number of new questions and issues.

So, you can NOT defend this new decision with "Well, we just have to follow the Rules as Written". The Rules as Written are very, very ambiguous and unclear. Well, I guess you CAN defend it this way but the defence is incredibly flawed and bad.

Now, the situation in PFS IS clear. That ruling has been made. Whether or not that ruling is followed is another question. But the ruling IS clear.

Although all the other questions now arise. I'm still not at all sure that my cleric (using an uncommon non Core domain spell) is even legal. And this ruling makes it crystal clear that I can NOT rely on my intuition as to what the rules actually mean.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

They *cannot* change core rules of the game

Sure they can, they just choose not to. It’s not like we don’t have precedent of them changing core rules for this specific campaign. One need only look at how evil spells worked in 1E to see that sometimes org play changes core rules. Though we agree in principle that they shouldn’t change core rules because it almost always creates rules conflicts and/or exploits that wouldn’t exist if we just followed the core rules.

No dev came in and said "No, evil spells always change your alignment." If they had, PFS would have needed to adapt. The detailed rules for spells shifting your alignment was in the GMG, and there were plenty of other things that would shift them back.

In fact, when this was being discussed, people pointed out that since there is unlimited down time in PFS, you could just go cast a good spell during downtime for every evil spell you cast during play. (And maybe a few extra.)

Using PF1 for the moment because its clearer.

The rules say that Wizards get craft scroll as a first level feat.

PFS chose (for very good reason) to change that.

If that isn't PFS changing an absolutely Core rule I don't know what could be.

As a clear PF2 example, they have changed the way that Hero Points are allocated and the benefits of their use. Again, if that isn't PFS changing an absolutely Core rule I don't know what could be.

The exact same legal and mental shenanigans that allow these changes (Rule 0, things in the GM purview, etc) means that PFS could change THIS rule if they wanted.

Now, there is very good reason to change as few rules as possible. But saying they can't change this (and other things) is flat out wrong

That said, since the Organized Play Team has made this ruling, we MUST abide by it. It is part of the 'price' we pay to play in the Campaign.

Well, one quite senior PFS personality has publicly stated that they will NOT follow the new rule.

And I've personally heard from several GMS that they are somewhere between "not following" and "not actively enforcing" the new rule.

The simple reality is that GMs frequently choose which rules to actually follow. And rules that are widely regarded as foolish or bad are often not actually followed in practice by all GMs.

In PF1, for example, many many people did not fill in the Chronicle Sheets in the way that the rules required (generally leaving it to players to fill in some of the sections the GM was supposed to fill in). This was admitted to by various senior PFS officials and I know that I saw it at tables I played with where the GM was a senior PFS official (Venture Captain+).

If you are playing PFS, you MUST follow this new rule... to do otherwise would be defined as cheating by the Guide...

I'm all for a forum campaign to get this ruling changed or at least written up where it is more likely to be seen by casual players, the Character Options blog.

~

The other issue this ruling creates is that the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog has been invalidated.

Why? According to the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, if an option is common and of Standard availability you "can take it as-is".

This ruling says you cannot... if you are a Cleric or Druid, and the option is a spell from any source other that the CRB.

James Jacobs (yes, we know he is technically not a “rules guy”) said very plainly that using an evil spell is always evil. Period. PFS decided to allow some evil spells like animate dead and especially Infernal healing without the evil stigma. So he’s, the intent by the Paizo team, call them developers, designers, whatever was that evil spells were evil. It was the org play/developers who deviated from the core for PFS. They could do the same thing again in 2E, but they are choosing not to. Given that I was not in favor of the evil deviation in 1E, I am glad org play is sticking to core. It’s just that we were not aware that the designers intended spell access to be as Tonya clarified. Given the history of Pathfinder 1E and v3.5 I think the designers had a bit of a responsibility to point out the change in rules from previous versions, especially since the latter half of the rule would seem to indicate the same level of access we are used to.

I thought James Jacob has been on record saying don't do what your trying to do because he's creative and not design.

If you are playing PFS, you MUST follow this new rule... to do otherwise would be defined as cheating by the Guide...

I'm all for a forum campaign to get this ruling changed or at least written up where it is more likely to be seen by casual players, the Character Options blog.

~

The other issue this ruling creates is that the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog has been invalidated.

Why? According to the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, if an option is common and of Standard availability you "can take it as-is".

This ruling says you cannot... if you are a Cleric or Druid, and the option is a spell from any source other that the CRB.

This rule should be changed. It is that simple. As you point out, in contradicts Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog.

Now we've got clerics with spellbooks. They should have just made all spells beyond the CRB Uncommon and followed the access rules.

OP can alter the rules.

On top of all of this, I wish to point out that this rule is going to be next to unenforceable. If someone wants to sit at all the cons and audit sheets, be my guest. But if that is what you plan to do, I suggest you go GM tables instead and be productive with your time doing something meaningful.

James Jacobs (yes, we know he is technically not a “rules guy”) said very plainly that using an evil spell is always evil. Period. PFS decided to allow some evil spells like animate dead and especially Infernal healing without the evil stigma. So he’s, the intent by the Paizo team, call them developers, designers, whatever was that evil spells were evil. It was the org play/developers who deviated from the core for PFS. They could do the same thing again in 2E, but they are choosing not to. Given that I was not in favor of the evil deviation in 1E, I am glad org play is sticking to core. It’s just that we were not aware that the designers intended spell access to be as Tonya clarified. Given the history of Pathfinder 1E and v3.5 I think the designers had a bit of a responsibility to point out the change in rules from previous versions, especially since the latter half of the rule would seem to indicate the same level of access we are used to.

the answer is there in your own post. James Jacobs said "This is not a core rule" as he has said "my statements are not rules, just how I did it in my game."

And they have pointed out the change to Tonya, and now we are working on how to accommodate it.

Jared Thaler wrote:

...

They *cannot* change core rules of the game.

...

Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, re: Rarity wrote:

If no rarity appears in the traits of an item, spell, or other game element, it is of common rarity. Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM, while unique ones are literally one-of-a-kind in the game. The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items to suit the story they want to tell.

According to the 'core rules of the game', Clerics and Druids have access to the common spells...

According to the designers, that access does not allow them to prepare the spell without acquiring it first.

They have further said that this is an "Integral rule of the game."

That said, since the Organized Play Team has made this ruling, we MUST abide by it. It is part of the 'price' we pay to play in the Campaign.

Org play did not make that rule. The developers did.

I will continue to request that this change be added to the Character Options blog so that new players and those that don't spend their time digging through the blogs/forums will...

That is a good suggestion. And a thing that is being worked on.

As a clear PF2 example, they have changed the way that Hero Points are allocated and the benefits of their use. Again, if that isn't PFS changing an absolutely Core rule I don't know what could be.

No they haven't. They have added some ways for people to get extra points, which is called for in the rules, and they nave added someways to get minor bonuses.

They haven't "changed how they worked."

They can add, and modify, they can't contradict, which is what you are asking them to do.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

If you are playing PFS, you MUST follow this new rule... to do otherwise would be defined as cheating by the Guide...

I'm all for a forum campaign to get this ruling changed or at least written up where it is more likely to be seen by casual players, the Character Options blog.

~

The other issue this ruling creates is that the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog has been invalidated.

Why? According to the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, if an option is common and of Standard availability you "can take it as-is".

This ruling says you cannot... if you are a Cleric or Druid, and the option is a spell from any source other that the CRB.

This rule should be changed. It is that simple. As you point out, in contradicts Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog.

Now we've got clerics with spellbooks. They should have just made all spells beyond the CRB Uncommon and followed the access rules.

OP can alter the rules.

On top of all of this, I wish to point out that this rule is going to be next to unenforceable. If someone wants to sit at all the cons and audit sheets, be my guest. But if that is what you plan to do, I suggest you go GM tables instead and be productive with your time doing something meaningful.

Nothing in this gives clerics spell books. They have lists of spells they can prepare, but those lists cannot be taken away from them and destroyed.

Okay, look.

I get that you don't want to believe me. That is fine. But I am telling you, PFS unilaterally saying as an organization "We are not going to follow this rule" is not going to happen.

You have two productive things you can do. Work with people to find ways to make the explanation clearer and get answers to the reasonable questions being asked.

Petition the Design Team to change their mind. (Which means going to where the Design team is, which is not here.)

I mean, you can loudly announce on here that you plan to cheat, but that isn't going to be productive. Though it may result in you being uninvited to GM in regions that value following the rules. I certainly would not be comfortable with a GM who says "I don't like these rules so I won't follow them." Those tend to be the GMs who say things like "I don't like how your character works, so I am going to change those rules."

Nothing in this gives clerics spell books. They have lists of spells they can prepare, but those lists cannot be taken away from them and destroyed.

Wrong. Sure looks like they have a spell book to me. It's a bad rule. It is unenforceable. You can argue your point all day long, but it will still be a bad rule and one that needs to be changed.

Jared Thaler wrote:

Nothing in this gives clerics spell books. They have lists of spells they can prepare, but those lists cannot be taken away from them and destroyed.

Wrong. Sure looks like they have a spell book to me. It's a bad rule. It is unenforceable. You can argue your point all day long, but it will still be a bad rule and one that needs to be changed.

No, they have a list of spells they can prepare. A spellbook is an item you need to have with you.

And you are missing the point. PFS doesn't have the ability to reverse this rule. If you think it is a bad rule, and you want it changed, go talk to the designers who wrote it.

And honestly, 90% of the rules of PFS are not enforceable. If you are encouraging people to cheat on this rule because it can't be enforced, you are effectively encouraging them to cheat on other rules that can't be enforced.

The other productive thing you could do would be a work-to-rule type protest. Anytime a cleric/druid/wizard at your table casts those spells, request to see the relevant chronicle where they've learned the spell.

I suspect that many players and GMs are blissfully unaware of this change and ruling. If they can't produce the chronicle where they learned the spell, they can't cast it.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, re: Rarity wrote:

If no rarity appears in the traits of an item, spell, or other game element, it is of common rarity. Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM, while unique ones are literally one-of-a-kind in the game. The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items to suit the story they want to tell.

According to the 'core rules of the game', Clerics and Druids have access to the common spells...

According to the designers, that access does not allow them to prepare the spell without acquiring it first.

They have further said that this is an "Integral rule of the game."

...

So, we are to ignore the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog? It states that you can take Common, Standard availability options... The ruling says that you cannot...

This is a change to the 'core rules of the game'...

Jared Thaler wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, re: Rarity wrote:

If no rarity appears in the traits of an item, spell, or other game element, it is of common rarity. Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM, while unique ones are literally one-of-a-kind in the game. The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items to suit the story they want to tell.

According to the 'core rules of the game', Clerics and Druids have access to the common spells...

According to the designers, that access does not allow them to prepare the spell without acquiring it first.

They have further said that this is an "Integral rule of the game."

...

So, we are to ignore the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog? It states that you can take Common, Standard availability options... The ruling says that you cannot...

This is a change to the 'core rules of the game'...

This rule is saying that in this specific case, having access to a common spell that is in a book other than the core rulebook is not sufficient to be able to prepare and cast it.

So yes, this specific ruling preempts the general rulings.

It is not a change to the rarity or availability rules. It is a specific rule regarding what a specific class has to do to make use of a set of common options. The rule book is chock full of common options you can't use unless you do something else first.

Stop trying to slippery slope the rule out of existance.

The other productive thing you could do would be a work-to-rule type protest. Anytime a cleric/druid/wizard at your table casts those spells, request to see the relevant chronicle where they've learned the spell.

I suspect that many players and GMs are blissfully unaware of this change and ruling. If they can't produce the chronicle where they learned the spell, they can't cast it.

In what way will that in any way convince the designers of the rule to change the rule?

By all means, educate people about the existence of the rule. But what you are suggesting violates the guidance on auditing chronicle sheets which is to work with players to correct honest errors in the least disruptive way possible.

In what way will that in any way convince the designers of the rule to change the rule?

By all means, educate people about the existence of the rule. But what you are suggesting violates the guidance on auditing chronicle sheets which is to work with players to correct honest errors in the least disruptive way possible.

It's possible that the designers do not realize the scale of their error. We'd be helping them get feedback from the players.

IMO, the least disruptive way would be "Sorry your character doesn't know that spell. You can retroactively pick a different spell for that slot if you'd like, and I will set aside some time at the end of the session so you can learn the spell at the Grand Lodge."

Unless you are suggesting we allow players to cheat? You could be uninvited from GMing at regions which value the rules, advocating for that.

pauljathome wrote:

As a clear PF2 example, they have changed the way that Hero Points are allocated and the benefits of their use. Again, if that isn't PFS changing an absolutely Core rule I don't know what could be.

No they haven't. They have added some ways for people to get extra points, which is called for in the rules, and they nave added someways to get minor bonuses.

They haven't "changed how they worked."

They can add, and modify, they can't contradict, which is what you are asking them to do.

Sorry, but this is sophistry of the highest order. They could "add" the rule that the society pays the costs for all clerics and druids to add new common spells to their list. They could "modify" the rule so that spells found in the Advanced Players Guide are treated as if they were in the Core Rulebook.

But saying "if you spend a Hero Point" you get more benefits IS absolutely CONTRADICTING a rule just as much as saying "on a hit, you regain a hit point" would be contradicting a rule.

Please don't get me wrong, Jared. I'm not blaming you for reporting this decision nor am I even really blaming Tonya for making the decision. But I'd urge you to stop raising so many very, very poor defences of it.

The simple reality is that
1) the developers apparently made a decision in the first place that many of us think to have been really bad AND communicated that decision very, very poorly
2) Tonya has decided that in this case the general principle of changing the PFS rules as little as possible outweighs any gain from changing this rule.

And I have no real argument with that. It's a bad rule but I've survived worse. It's not game breakingly bad. The principle of minimal PFS change is a good one (ironically, another thread was describing this as JUST a PFS rule because all other GMs would just ignore it if they were even aware of it)

But I DO have problems with the really poor attempts to justify the ruling. It's NOT clearly RAW, it's NOT the case that PFS was helpless to change it, it's NOT the case this is clearly a good rule, etc

Jared Thaler wrote:

In what way will that in any way convince the designers of the rule to change the rule?

By all means, educate people about the existence of the rule. But what you are suggesting violates the guidance on auditing chronicle sheets which is to work with players to correct honest errors in the least disruptive way possible.

It's possible that the designers do not realize the scale of their error. We'd be helping them get feedback from the players.

IMO, the least disruptive way would be "Sorry your character doesn't know that spell. You can retroactively pick a different spell for that slot if you'd like, and I will set aside some time at the end of the session so you can learn the spell at the Grand Lodge."

Unless you are suggesting we allow players to cheat? You could be uninvited from GMing at regions which value the rules, advocating for that.

The current rules allow for people who paid the wrong price to instead pay the correct price at the time the error was caught.

The current rules allow for people who paid the wrong price to instead pay the correct price at the time the error was caught.

Oh indeed they do.

However, Learn a Spell is not just a cost associated, but also requires a check which, if you fail, cannot be attempted again for a whole level. Hence my belief that the least disruptive way to handle it would be merely to say that they don't know the spell, and the honest mistake can be corrected after the game (or maybe during a break in play).

Gary Bush wrote:

Until the design team comes out otherwise, with a FAQ or errata, the rule as written is how they intended it work.

I know that I'm harping on the same point but I can't help myself.

I have (reluctantly) come to the conclusion that the words as written CAN be read in the new way.

But it is utterly and completely absurd and flat out false to say that is the ONLY way that the words could be interpreted. And a great deal of evidence (See all the threads) indicates that the new way is a far less likely reading of the words than the old way. And leads to a significant number of new questions and issues.

So, you can NOT defend this new decision with "Well, we just have to follow the Rules as Written". The Rules as Written are very, very ambiguous and unclear. Well, I guess you CAN defend it this way but the defence is incredibly flawed and bad.

Now, the situation in PFS IS clear. That ruling has been made. Whether or not that ruling is followed is another question. But the ruling IS clear.

Although all the other questions now arise. I'm still not at all sure that my cleric (using an uncommon non Core domain spell) is even legal. And this ruling makes it crystal clear that I can NOT rely on my intuition as to what the rules actually mean.

Yea, I agree with you here. I am fortunate that my cleric only used spells from CRB.

Jared Thaler wrote:

The current rules allow for people who paid the wrong price to instead pay the correct price at the time the error was caught.

Oh indeed they do.

However, Learn a Spell is not just a cost associated, but also requires a check which, if you fail, cannot be attempted again for a whole level. Hence my belief that the least disruptive way to handle it would be merely to say that they don't know the spell, and the honest mistake can be corrected after the game (or maybe during a break in play).

I don't think it's productive to urge people to make a harsh ruling in order to emphasize the effects of this rule.

multiple nested quotes wrote:

<condensed for length>

This rule is saying that in this specific case, having access to a common spell that is in a book other than the core rulebook is not sufficient to be able to prepare and cast it.

So yes, this specific ruling preempts the general rulings.

It is not a change to the rarity or availability rules. It is a specific rule regarding what a specific class has to do to make use of a set of common options. The rule book is chock full of common options you can't use unless you do something else first.

Stop trying to slippery slope the rule out of existance.

According to the blogs, if it is Common rarity and Standard availability, you can use the option "as-is"...

Since a Cleric/Druid cannot use those options "as-is", then it is a violation of Rarity and Availability...

None of the Common, Standard availability spells have any listed Prerequisites.

The options are Common but you can't take them as a Common option. This is specifically a violation of how Rarity and Availability have been stated to work in Organized Play.

I don't think it's productive to urge people to make a harsh ruling in order to emphasize the effects of this rule.

I don't know if making sure people are following the rules could be described as "harsh".

Playing in Paizo's Organized Play we are required to follow the rules and rulings as handed down by the Organized Play Team.

Whether we like or agree with them or not.

~

Also, it might have missed notice, but, technically no ruling has been made as to access, just an allowance to Learn a Spell from the vast Pathfinder Society libraries...

We are, technically, arguing about an implied ruling...

If you've ever wondered why people at Paizo tend to not respond much on the forums, this thread makes an excellent case for why. The entitlement, rudeness and sheer bullying from some posters is astounding and appalling, perhaps remember that however you may feel about a rule this is a game and there are other people doing their best to ensure its fun on the other side of the monitor, people literally spending most of their waking hours trying to do so in fact, treat them with kindness even when you disagree. If you can't express yourself in a way that isn't kind then you're better off not engaging.

It's a rule that is asinine. Don't tell me OP can't change a rule. That's not true.

This changes the rules for access and adds another barrier for players to pick up the game, let alone PFS. The goal was to simplify things, not make them harder. This rule is the exact opposite of that.

This makes clerics buy access to spells which they are supposed to get from their deities. It changes the access rules which just messes up things that much more.

You can say they don't have a spellbook. I will say they do. So, the gods won't share access to their spells they distribute to their clerics unless the clerics go purchase them first and then try to learn them? Why is that different for these spells here (CRB) and these spells here (all other spells in any publication)? Where is the in game mechanism to explain this other than an obscure rule most people never noticed until now?

This is just freaking ignorant.

pauljathome wrote:

I don't think it's productive to urge people to make a harsh ruling in order to emphasize the effects of this rule.

I don't know if making sure people are following the rules could be described as "harsh".

Given that you suggested this as

The other productive thing you could do would be a work-to-rule type protest.

I'm finding it rather hard to believe that you now believe that this is the fair thing to do.

I'm finding it rather hard to believe that you now believe that this is the fair thing to do.

I don't believe it's fair, but it is exactly playing by the rules that have been laid out by Organized Play.

This is a rule I can forsee as being commonly broken. As a GM, I have a duty to follow the rules and ensure the rules are followed at my table, and if a rule is being commonly broken then it's worth investigating it to ensure it's being followed.

That's the point of a work-to-rule protest. Everything is being done exactly as it should be, according to the rules. The absolute very worst thing that could result from that is people learning the new rules.

Yea, I agree with you here. I am fortunate that my cleric only used spells from CRB.

Same. And likely to stay that way.

pauljathome wrote:

I'm finding it rather hard to believe that you now believe that this is the fair thing to do.

I don't believe it's fair, but it is exactly playing by the rules that have been laid out by Organized Play.

This is a rule I can forsee as being commonly broken. As a GM, I have a duty to follow the rules and ensure the rules are followed at my table, and if a rule is being commonly broken then it's worth investigating it to ensure it's being followed.

That's the point of a work-to-rule protest. Everything is being done exactly as it should be, according to the rules. The absolute very worst thing that could result from that is people learning the new rules.

No, the worst thing that can happen is you give PFS a reputation for being un fun and rule obsessed, and drive away players form org play.

You literally advocated this as a way to disrupt play to get the rule changed.

No, the worst thing that can happen is you give PFS a reputation for being un fun and rule obsessed, and drive away players form org play.

You literally advocated this as a way to disrupt play to get the rule changed.

Not to disrupt play, other than to follow the rules (just like many other small rules clarifications/adjudications which happen over the course of play).

Unless you are advocating for not following and/or not enforcing the rules? Which is essentially the same as the rule not changing.

The other productive thing you could do would be a work-to-rule type protest.

You yourself stated you were doing this to disrupt play.

Stop arguing in bad faith.

You yourself stated you were doing this to disrupt play.

Stop arguing in bad faith.

Never did I say that following the rules would be disruptive to play, as it usually is not. A quick 30 seconds to check chronicles, or an explanation of the new rules is all I expect when I communicate about the new rule.

One of the things that separates Pathfinder 2 from 5e is that it is rules-oriented. This is a good thing. It means it is clear what the rules are most of the time, rather than relying on GMs to make a bunch of adhoc rulings, like in 5e. In my opinion it is one of the reasons for such a strong reaction to this ruling. Many people have had their confidence in their own readings of the rules shaken, even if slightly, by this. I don't wanna overstate it, since it is a minor change at the end of the day, but it is a sharp change from what was the easily assumed reading beforehand.

The other productive thing you could do would be a work-to-rule type protest.

You started this conversation saying that you were doing this as a form of protest. You shot your own credibility in the foot.

How do you plan to enforce the rule, Jared? At least Fireclaw Drake has a plan to enforce it even if I disagree with him over doing so. This is one of those rules that cause a lot of divide when there is no reason for that to happen.

We have a bad rule.
We have poor implementation.
We have lousy explanations of the rule.
We have a terrible defense of the rule.

So far, I see nothing good coming of this rule in any way.

Yet, here we are.