707's page

If your cleric is healing in combat either things are so tough that your party is facing a TPK and would probably be dead without the cleric, or the cleric is not doing his job right. Healing for the most part should be done out of combat and primarily through magic items. About the only time the cleric should be using his own spells for healing HP is during downtime or at the end of the day when the party resting in a safe location.

I was actually thinking more about removing conditions during combat rather than healing hit points. It may not technically be 'healing,' but we still refer to it that way. However, I have used the Heal spell in combat before to restore HP. ;)

or the cleric is not doing his job right

I tend to be careful about telling people how to play their character.

My impression is that most clerics are decent at surviving and can hold their own in combat while still dealing some damage. Of course, they’re also full casters. So on paper, they seem great. However, it’s better to avoid standing alone in front of the BBEG. And about your spells at those moments, an arcane caster really shows you what it means to be a true spellcaster. Clerics tend to end up focusing on buffing or healing, which, while important, isn’t particularly exciting. So, while you need a reliable divine caster, clerics can sometimes feel like they’re just doing a rather dull job when the action gets intense.

A lot of people who feel this way haven’t tried leaving some spell slots open for later preparation. 15 minute prep to have access to your entire possible spell list. That’s super versatile.

That’s true and can help in some situations. Personally, I prefer doing this with an oracle — stocking up on scrolls and using a Mnemonic Vestment. It’s not quite as good as the method you mentioned, but it’s close. Also you don’t need to memorize the entire spell list or have the perfect solution at the right moment. Instead, you can prepare properly and then just check your equipment once your spells known won't help. Plus, it’s a lot quicker in game. Though obviously limited.

Adjacent to differences of opinion in power levels, how do you foresee this homebrew being used? I can’t imagine many GMs are going to want a player playing one of these in their campaign over the default sorcerer. Is anyone planning on adding this to their own campaigns?

I’ve seen Burning Hands deal 5d4+10 damage at level 1, and in those situations, I definitely prefer this Unchained Sorcerer. Kind of funny though when the minimum damage kills your enemies even though they save. :)

Wow, this was definitely a lot of work.

I personally dislike preparing spellcasters. I think the Arcanist is much stronger than the Wizard. I find the Cleric rather weak, even though most people seem to think otherwise. But that might just be due to our play style.

That said, I really love many of these changes. The idea of making sure the damage boost doesn't stack is fantastic. Also, turning some of the weaker bloodlines into a valid option is a great improvement.

The Dragon Disciple is my favorite prestige class, and I’ve always disliked when people say you should only take four levels in it. Making the dragon form abilities more worthwhile sounds great to me. Especially giving access to the other form of the dragon spells. However, I don’t understand why you’ve given it 3/day for hours per level. Why not do something like the Armor of Bones from the Bones Mystery, where it’s for hours per level in 1-hour increments?

Bastard swords and Dwarven waraxes are examples of two-handed weapons UNLESS you have the Exotic weapon proficiency feat. In that case, they become one-handed weapons.

They are in the one-handed category. You can clearly see that, if you look at the table in CRB. Obviously the weapons hit points won't change because you hold it with two hands. However you seem to be correct that they are treated as two-handed weapon considering your abilites as of this FAQ.

1) They sometimes clarify rules that seem obvious to you, but were in dispute nonetheless. The bastard sword scenario probably applies here

That is true, I should defenetly keep that in mind.

Looking at the description of the second FAQ it specifies to treat the weapon as a one-handed weapon. Due to the wording of the question that FAQ only applies to feats and class abilities that state it is treated like a one-handed weapon. If the feat simply specified that it allows you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand then that FAQ does not apply.

Thank you, this must be the important difference I was asking for in my original post and explains the difference between the two FAQs.

I should probably provide some context regarding the exact rules to ensure people understand why I was looking for an FAQ.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

So, RAW is clearly dependent on the type of weapon you're using when it comes to two-handed weapons. This also means that weapons like the bastard sword, katana, and dwarven waraxe do not get a damage bonus unless you wield them with two hands, because they are categorized as one-handed weapons. They fall into this category even though your proficiency might limit your ability to wield them one-handed.

Category one-handed

A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

However, there are situations where you might wield weapons from the two-handed category in one hand.

While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.

You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient.

RAW this means that you do get the increased damage in both cases, even though you’re wielding the weapon in just one hand. This is because, for two-handed weapons, RAW is only dependent on the type of weapon you're using, as previously established.

This seemed to be an exploit to me, so I decided to look for an FAQ and found two FAQs that are clearly conflicting. The idea that one might refer to weapons like the bastard sword makes the most sense so far. However, these weapons were already clearly addressed in RAW and don't really need an FAQ. Also both FAQs discuss two-handed weapons.

If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand

So I’m still uncertain what this means.

Two handed weapons are large or unwieldy enough that they can ONLY be used with both hands. Bastard swords and your lance situation are specific exception examples.

Exactly, this is the reason I was looking for an FAQ, because it seemed weird to apply the increased damage even though the weapon is wielded in one hand.

That would make a lot of sense.

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

This FAQ might just refer to weapons like bastard sword. That is actually a one handed weapon. They might just call it "normally" when wielding it with martial weapon proficiency instead of exotic weapon proficiency.

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

However this might be just bad wording. So for now I assume one FAQ talkes about one-handed weapons that can be used two-handed with different proficiency while the other talkes about two-handed weapons used in one hand.

I was wondering how to handle the damage of a Two-Handed weapon wielded in one hand. So, I decided to take a look at the FAQ. However, there seem to be two FAQs addressing this question, and they appear to be conflicting.

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qno
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9quw

Did I miss some important difference between the two?

Is there an actual rule on how to determine which spell level to use for bonus spells without a specified spell level?

I don't think it is explained any further.

I've always assumed it was just 'first spell listed is 1st level, second spell listed is 2nd level...' but I just realized that I can't find this spelled out anywhere in the actual rules (I've seen the Aquatic Sorcerer + Geyser FAQ that was linked above, but this doesn't actually present a general rule to use)...

So what are you suggesting?

It has the same name and similar properties, but is not the same spell. Think of it as being like a clone that was given the same name. If I clone a dog and call it the same name as the original is it the same dog? The only difference between the two is one if older. Is it the same dog?

I don't think the rules support you claim. It certainly can be seen like this, but resovles in the problems in use of magic items I explained above. Seeing it as a reference instead of a clone won't resovle in problems.

This an unusual case that only comes up with a spontaneous caster with unusual bonus spells from their mystery or bloodline.

It's the same for cleric domains. The idea of a spell changing spell level and extending the characters spell list has nothing to do with spontaneous casters. But since a cleric has access to the whole spell list, the question won't raise. And still I'm absolutely certain that, even though the spell has different spell levels, it still has to be the same spell. Sure you need a different spell slot to cast it, and apparently a different spell known, but it necessarily need to be the same spell.

Honestly, I think true seeing and Antimagic Field are switched.

If they got true seeing at 12 and Antimagic Field at 14,...

Still not working. True Seeing is Cleric 5. This way it would be level 6.

Like I said before, I play pathfinder for 14 years by now. So I am well aware of all of that. Also obviously I did recognize the rules you posted. Of course I'm reading the class i'm playing, and do so more than once. I don't deny that there might be implications that I don't necessarily pick up, do to language. However I am well able to understand the rules as they are written.

The same spell can easily be available at different spell levels. And as we established before, this can't change the spell, without interfering on how pathfinder handles use of magic items. In this very case, the same spell is available at two different spell levels at the same spell list, and still it has to be the same spell, unless I and everybody I ever played with badly misunderstood, how use of magic items work.
Just to be sure, I'm giving an example, so everybody can object:
If a high level oracle of life writes a scroll of mass heal at spell level 8 (bonus spell for oracle of life level 16). Every cleric could use that scroll (if she has a sufficient caster level or makes the caster level check) even though mass heal is never a level 8 spell for anybody or on any spell list besides an oracle of life.

Not talking about any implications here but pure rules as written, it only says that I know some spells of a specific level:
"An oracle begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells..."
To me, the most straight forward approach is, to assume that the rules are referring to the level of the spells in your spell list.
If you are saying, that every native English speaker recognizes, that this implies that spells known are also a spell list, with a spell level linked to each spell known, the only thing I can do, is to accept that, since English is not my first language.

The alternative would be that a spell level is not important, about whether you know a spell or not. To me it seems to make much more sense. Especially since they create the almost same spells over and over again, seemingly only so it actually is a different spell:
1. Summon monster 1-9
2. Summon nature’s ally 1-9
3. Cure (light, moderate, serious critical) Wounds (, mass)
The same goes for I don't know how many polymorph spells and don't get me started on communal or mass spells. They could have easily made all those repetitive spells into a single spell for each of them if the spell level alone would be enough to make it a different spell.

But it being weird to me is not crucial, the fact that I'm the only one with this impression says much more. So apparently I'm simply wrong and maybe just like you said, because I don't see obvious implications.

Basically, you have the spell "Antimagic Field (lvl 6)" and the spell "Antimagic Field (lvl 8)". They do the same, but they are seperate, different spells for spell list and spells known purposes.

Like I said before they cannot really be different spells, otherwise we get problems concerning magic Items. However if a spell known is also connected to a specific spell level I need several spells known. Since basically everybody seems to think so, I accept that.

Unlike other divine spellcasters, an oracle's selection of spells is extremely limited. An oracle begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of her choice. At each new oracle level, she gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 2–6. Unlike spells per day, the number of spells an oracle knows is not affected by her Charisma score; the numbers on Table 2–6 are fixed.

The bolded part of the section shows the spells known are in fact by spell level. It also states the numbers are fixed. So, at 6th level an Oracle has 7 0 level spells, 4 1st level spells, 2 2nd level spell and 1 3rd level spell.

Just because I know spells of a specific level doesn't necessarily means that the spell known is linked to a level that I learned it on. It could merely mean that when learning spells (get to know it -> get it as spell known) I have to select a spell that is available on that level. I'm actually convinced that the author of these words never meant to cover the edge case of a single spell being on several spell levels. However like I said before I accept that a spell known is linked to a spell level, by the fact, that seemingly everybody is convinced of it. So I probably just never got that and am grateful that you guys explained that to me.

This assumption is also supported on how NPC's are presented. Showing a spell list, subdivided by level with the headline "Spells Known". So you are probably right.

The description of spells known in any spontaneous caster has a chart with a list of spells known. That chart is indexed by spell level. A 14th level Oracle knows 1 7th level spell, plus cure/inflict wounds mass and your mystery spell. That gives the Oracle 3 7th level spells known.

I always took all those as pure format decisions to help the reader see easily the options available. So I can easily see that I can choose 3 level 7th spells at Oracle level 14th. I simply never thought of it as a spell list of its own. I still would prefer a rule clearly stating whether a spell known is fixed to a spell level or not, but i guess I won't get that.

That FAQ is pretty confusing and I think you'd be better off to ignore it.

I try to understand the rules, ignoring FAQ seems like the opposite of what I want to do.

Also it seems pretty clear to me, what the author is saying: You add the bonus spells of your class, both to your spell list and to your spells known.

It might not be rules as written, but that was obviously unclear before, because the rules as written weren't clear enough.

For casting spells using your Oracle spell slots the only thing that matters is your list of spells known.

Side note:

So you are basically saying a spell known is also tied to a spell level? Just like spells per day are bound to a spell level. I always thought of spells known just as a list of spells that the character knows. Obviously I can select from the list of the appropriated level as indicated on the table of the class. And obviously I need the appropriate level of spell slot to cast the spell, but I never thought of spells known as its own spell list that also implies specific spell levels on a spell known.

Seeing it this way, it makes sense for it to be a limiting factor. Thank you very much. Do you happen to know the place where the rules explain that?

I guess I'm not communicating my question clearly enough. Obviously English is not my first language, maybe this is the problem. I do understand how spellcasting works in general. I'm playing pathfinder first edition ever since the core rulebook came out. So I am aware of the difference between an actual spell level and the spell slot I'm using to cast a spell.

My confusion mainly results of the fact, that apparently I have the same spell twice on my spell list at different spell levels and how this fact interacts with spells known. Seemingly most people think, this means I can also have it twice as spell known and if I want to be able to cast it on both spell levels (not just use another spell slot) I also need to have it as spell known twice. I just don't understand where this comes from.

The only explanation I could imagine would be, that through the fact, that those two spells have different spell levels they are different spells. This however wouldn't work, because this would mean, that a bard could not use a level three scroll of heroism, created by a wizard, without UMD. Since heroism is a bard 2nd level and wizard 3rd level spell. Since this is not the case and a bard can use a wizard scroll even if the spell is on a different spell level. I just don't understand where this could possibly come from.

To answer your question: I don't want to cast antimagic field at all.
Me: "I cast Antimagic Field."
GM: "Let's meet tomorrow, once everybody recalculated their high level Character without magic."

There are some differences like spell DC and dispelling order that make a difference whether you use a higher level spell slot or you use a higher level spell. Which is the reason heighten spell exists in the first place. This might normally not be important for Antimagic Field. This case would however also apply to the aquatic sorcerer bloodline and the geyser spell mentioned in the FAQ above which has a save DC.

Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it. I'm not really looking for advice on spell selection here. I'm trying to understand how the spell list works with spells known. Typically if you have a spell on your spell list and also as spell known, you can cast it on the indicated level. The rare case that the same spell is twice on your spell list is to my knowledge not covered in the rules.

However, so far most people seem to think that the rules imply, that if you have the same spell twice on your spell list, you also need to have it twice as spell known to cast it on both spell levels (not just use a different spell slot). Sadly I still don't understand how you come to this result.

Thank you for the quick response.
To me it seems rather counter intuitve to be in need of picking the same spell twice as spell know to cast it on both slots of the spell list.
However it seems weird to be twice on my spell list in the first place. Especially with true seeing wich is added at a higher level than normal.

Would you be so kind to tell me what makes you come to the conclusion?

I’m currently playing an oracle with dragon mystery. The dragon mystery gives antimagic field as bonus spell at oracle level 12 and true seeing at level 14.
From this FAQ it seems obvious I get antimagic field as 6th level spell to my spell list and also get it as a spell known. This doesn’t remove antimagic field from the oracle spell list as 8th level spell.
From this FAQ one could argue that it is added as separate spell known.
The same conflict but vice versa applies at oracle level 14 for dragon mystery bonus spell true seeing.

Question one: Can I cast antimagic field as an 6th and 8th level spell without using heighten spell or would I need to learn it as a spell known at 8th level to do so?
Question two: Can I cast true seeing as a 5th and 7th level spell or would I need to learn it as a spell known at 5th level to do so?