Altaica's page

First of all, "the creative Commons" is actually 6 different licensing contracts. WOTC chose “CC-BY-4.0" which does not include several of the restrictions that you mentioned in your post.

yes. the CC-By-4.0 DOES NOT INCLUDE the restrictions, that's why it's open.

For those confused. 'open' forbids certain restrictions.

If Paizo released PF1 under a Creative Commons license, but said no one could publish anything that uses PF2 material without a legal contract separately negotiated with the licensing attorneys, it would be like what WOTC has done.

Now I don't really follow DnD but as far as I know 5e is still the current edition and WoTC is still claiming they are not developing a new edition. While PF2 is like 3 years old.

It's an open license on future material, not just old, out-of-date material.

It's not 'open' and not 'viral' for isn't going to effect future material.

I was heavy into 3E I know that people are going to claim everything, except what they include from the SRD-equivalent, as what ever the equivalent of Product Identity is.

"You can't use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn't use reason to get into." - Neil deGrasse.
and I don't have to time to by crazy with you so ff no one can tell who Garf***d G***s is I'm not going to respond. If you're studied why TPP needed the OGL in the first place and why WoTC needed the OGL in the second.

I don't know of any formal definitions of 'Open' other the the one when they coined the term "Open Source"

most people think of 'open' as in "Open Source" even though they don't know what that is.

1: Free Redistribution

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

2: this is just that is have to be the source that is open so won't repeat it.

3: Derived Works

"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

4: Integrity of The Author’s Source Code

"The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."

5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research"

7: Distribution of License

"The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties."

8: License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

"The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution."

9: License Must Not Restrict Other Software

"The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software."

10: License Must Be Technology-Neutral

"No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface."

The creative Commons is good enough for WoTC so what problems with CC does the ORC license hope to fix?

I'm assuming you're referring to Perform (Evangelism) so you can be like one of those tele-evangelists who swipe their coat at people and everyone falls over?

Well I'm more verse in Evangelism so my thoughts where of the old time pre TV traveling Evangelists, but yes to got the general idea. Yes she would work the crowd up into a frenzy and then doing a Healing Surge(I think that's the right name for it) My idea was as Oracles don't have to prepare spells there's nothing limiting the number of spells she can imbue with the Imbue With Spell Ability so she would ordain people as ministers of life. One part Televangelist one part Universal Life Church.

If so, I'd say Perform (Act) and/or Perform (Oratory) would have you covered.

I guess I'll just have to Role play it that she is only skilled at Evangelical preaching.

Actually, VOs are volunteers for the Organized Play Foundation, a non-profit that was created to help bring together gamers.

Thanks I couldn't remember the name of the company that runs PFS and I didn't have an idea where to look it up at.

You have any evidence that the Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't apply to Non profits?

As I said being contractually obligated to run games sounds abit like 'employee' not 'volunteer' VG devs are careful not to put any obligations on volunteers. It's not that inconceivable to a non lawyer that Paizo could be held liable as they are the prime benefactor of OPF operations

After all lawyers working on contingency can be held liable for their clients.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3153924/technology-law-regulation/a-po tentially-fatal-blow-against-patent-trolls.html

Well, I guess I understand now why PF2 dropped "you get bonus spells for being smart/wise/charismatic".

It's clear the intent is "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots" but there might not be a non-awkward way to say this.

What's so clunky about "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots"?

My friendly local Venture Officer mentioned that he had to sign a contract to become one. Now for those not familiar with contract law for a contract needs to contain two elements to be legally valid: All parties must be in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other). Something of value must be exchanged -- such as cash, services, or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item) -- for something else of value.

Thanks to the class action OU volunteers are employees lawsuit Video Game devs are very careful to not give anything of value to volunteers

https://www.salon.com/2000/09/21/ultima_volunteers/

I can't believe a competent lawyer wouldn't say this is a big sue me sign on their back.

SorrySleeping wrote:

Even if an 18 int Wizard could cast 4th level spells, he has no way to do so.

He starts at level 1 with three spells, all of which have to be first level. A 2nd level scroll is 150gp, which is more than the Wizard's maximum starting gold of 120gp, also the 40gp needed to put that scroll into your spellbook.

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, does not change the rules at all. An 18 wis cleric can't cast level 4 spells at level 1, despite having access to their whole spell list.

Side question: on what page(s) does it discuss wizards adding spells to their spellbook? I can only find the ones they get when they level up.

I read it as Wizards don't have access to higher level spells so that is why they didn't get the bonus spell slots.

I only played 2e so was use to low level clerics haven't world braking powers at low level with the only balance considerations being combat.

The only reason I've read about why my interpretation isn't playable is on aesthetics; that it doesn't make high level clerics appear as powerful.

I have yet to be given an example of a divine spell that would be game braking if they got their bonus slots at first level. on another forum someone said it's unfair to give clierics access to high level spells because of their bonus spell slots but not give high Int wizard access to cloudkill.

So I'm not the only one that read it as Clerics having ACCESS to higher levels spell but only kept from casting them by not having the spell slots.

Is perform like profession where we can choose any thing to specialize in, or are we limited to the 9 categories listed.

Specifically I want Perform(evangelism) or would i have to settle for perform(Oratory)?

It was said that it was unfair to ask my GM to continue to use the rules at he interpreted them because it was what the rule books technically said and break the unwritten rules.

I'll let Brandon "Rym" DeCoster & Scott Rubin explain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuThpe-Rgxs

I'm a linguist(not professional but it is my bonus feat for being autistic) so let me try to dumb this down enough that you won't get confuzed.

If they mean that you get your bonus feats at lvl1 and they your only able to use then when you you can add a spell of they lvl to your known spell list what are the odds, given paizo's track record, of them saying:
"No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. "

For example, a 1st-level wizard with 18 Intelligence has (according to table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells) 1 bonus spell at spell levels 1, 2, and 3. However, he can only use the 1st-level bonus spell because as a 1st-level wizard he only has access to 1st-level spells (his class-based number of 2nd- and 3rd-level spells per day are "—", meaning "no access to spells of this level"). As soon as he becomes a 3rd-level wizard, he gains access to his 2nd-level spell slots and can use that bonus 2nd-level spell slot from his high Intelligence, and likewise for 3rd-level spells and bonus spells at wizard level 5.

Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels."

As written, no, you can't transfer a spell to someone as an Oracle isn't a prepared caster but I would assum... wait.. you said you didn't want opinions so I won't bother giving mine.

Read the thread title I don't want opinions about if 1lvl oracles get bonus spells. That was just backstory the question was do oracles with IwSA

From the oracle desc "Unlike a cleric, an oracle need not prepare her spells
in advance."

from the core book, "Divine spellcasters prepare their spells in largely the same
manner as wizards do, but with a few d ifferences."

Oracles are devine spellcasters so they prepare spells, it just that is the don't do it they still get to cast them.

Altaica wrote:

Or look at any spell caster stat block in any Paizo product.

Paizo know how the rules and supost to work so use rules as indented PFS in rules as written and Pazio is tarrable at writing clear rules. it's clear that it's a a commonly interpreted that " In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he

has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1–3)." means that you get then as a base class feature to mean or "Bonus Spells from a High Ability Score: Can I use these even if my spellcasting class level isn't high enough to give me access to those spell levels?" wouldn't be in the Core FAQ
I shocked that you still find it unievivable that a newbie would read it that way.

We have demonstrated that you are incorrect.

your only demonstration was a a build of a Wizard that didn't have bonus spell slots With out any explanation of the rules that When into making those decisions. I gave a build of a oracle that did have them. check.

We have quoted the core book and the FAQ which are both PFS legal.[/url] What lvl do you think people Where giving the bonus spell slots on? Since you clearly stated that I'm the only one that made the mistake of reading the Core book and assuming that you get your bonus spell slots at lvl one because it says, "In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he

has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1–3)" in fact every class with spell I've looked at used the exact same sentence with stat name changes

Quote:

But, despite this, you insist that you are right.

yes, but not about the spell slots. I'm right that you need to do more that give a pregen without bonus spells to issue a clarification that the commonly help view that you get your bonus spell slots at fist lvl and but don't get high lvl spells to put in them. THe commplete rules for on when you get you bonus spell slots, is "In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he

has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1–3)" & "In addition to having a
high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough
class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level"

I find it hard to believe that your incapable of seeing that the rules on when you get your bonus spells slots aren't RAw.

Quote:

When the Organize play GM will refuse you at his or her table because your character is illegal and when the Venture-officer (be it Agent, Lieutenant or Captain)

There in no VO over Regional Venture-Coordinators :P its goes straight to paizo. But I doubt I could get the anyone that high up the totem pole attention. If I have a chance to make my case to some the doesn't assume that their is only one valid interpretation that is RAw. The bonus spells is completely rules as everyone else is doing it. and that the Core book is confuzing, which Paizo acknowledged is a problem in the FAQ, so their need to be better job is they want to not be lying when they say PFS is RAw only.

Quote:

will support the GM and tell you your character is not legal and therefore cannot be accepted on any tables.

I'm pretty sure group would choose to go non PFS than to kick me out of it. THou I'm not sure if the GM would choose me other being RVC which is possible is paizo don't allow my groups adventure to count towards his mandatory PFS sessions.

Quote:

when the Regional Venture-Coordinator will tell you the same thing..

the RVC checked my char sheet and oked except to having Ra as my deity.

Quote:

maybe you will accept that you are incorrect in this instance.

I doubt that even a RVC interpreting that you get you bonus spell slots at first level but don't get your higher level spells unless something other that your bonus slot makes them available to you is enough to get you to acknowledge that the current descriptions of bonus spell slots are inadequate.

Altaica,

They aren't lying to you, and they aren't wrong.

You have come here to ask for advice from experienced if sometimes somewhat unsocialized players, they unanimously agree on what they give you (unanimity being rather rare on the forums) and you still question their advice. Odd.

I keep questioning because I don't follow their logic. I know that is the consensus that you don't get bonus spells at first lvl but it's obviously a problem that people read the rules and think I get bonus spells at first lvl or it wouldn't be in the FAQ. but as thesaurus and a build of a wizard without any explanation of the rules that when into building him doesn't a clarification of the rules it's a quotation of the rules.

A can't think of any explanation other than your guys are griefing the newbies. and so far nether can you.

Sometimes there is something to be said for collective intelligence,

which is why I keep asking questions. I repeat myself because people keep repeating what already been said and it would be rude to just ignore them.

Chances are that if you ask something on the boards and the vast majority have the same opinion, that is usually the right interpretation

no the only right ruling is a fun one, anything else is greifing.

The posters might not always be able to give you long reasonable arguments (with sources) and instead post something like "Well it's pretty obvious" or "no reasonable GM would rule otherwise" while those posts would likely not win them prizes in a debate, they are still taking the time to try to help you with your question....

Yet I get ban for taking my time to writing the most courteous reply I'm capable of say "Try better, which I know you are capable of, or give up, your just wasting evreybody's time other wise."why? because I end up offending people? well I'm offending by their lack of effort to make a positive contribution to the conversation and just getting the tread closed for degrading into uncivil debate. I even got banned from adult survivors of Child abuse for even suggesting that CSA victims are only victims as long as they allow themselves to be victims and if they wont to move past their abuse they have to take some responsibility to for their continued suffering. If I can't get support there why should I assume I can get support here. I'm a witchchild which mean my intire community decided to use me as an scapegoat and tortuously remove me from it for the betterment of everyone, so needly to say I get vary jumpy when people start down that path again. THat I need to be removed form the community and defend for myself for the good of the community.

D&D 4 has fans, D&D 5 has fans, the former had a different approach, more standardization of powers and trying to squeeze a lot of effects in a somewhat different mold. I ran it a couple of times and I think it could have been decent fun, but my group was not too interested and that particular game loop.

I heard that PF was bigger then 4e and that PF2e is a response to people leaving PF for 5e.

I haven't touched D&D 5 but from what I have seen and read about it, the mechanical aspects are a bit vaguer and quite a lot of things are left up to the GM. The various RPG options out there differ in theme, mechanical complexity, and dept, and I would suggest everyone to just play what they like.

are you agree with me?

Both are somewhat true,

People that want standardized rules would rather play 4e it's expertly designed to fill that niece

I played a number of D&D games outside of organized play, even ran a couple of adventures out of Dungeon Magazine, and my experiences were mixed at best.

Having a standardized ruleset is a huge advantage, I could play my archer in Germany, and then visit the Netherlands (as I have done there) and play him there as well

The old I can play my character in any group lie. you are always going to need session 0 to get every one on the same page and assing party roles. your party need to work together unless your character doesn't matter. Rules help people speak the same language but they don't do the talking themselves. if you char is just a bunch of stats why are they so dear to you the char, I say that it's the fluff of the charactor that matters. can you rember the last villin that your first char fought? how about the first attack roll of the last battle you were in? and in PFS you can't mix levels more than 5 apart so you can't play any char in any group.

If every group had their own rules I might turn up to learn that the Netherlands have outlawed the use of bows because they are OP, or that my class was not allowed at that GMs table. The rules that limit us also protect us.

But how ofter to you run across A group where they ban elves because they don't like that concept but still be willing to play PFS? It's better to keep them to the fringes of the community rather than excommunicate them completely so that people that don't care about elves can still find them.

in some locations, it really is the only game in town, and its follow the rules, or you don't get to play.

if everybody at the group agrees it would be better is staffs did 1d8 damage why should they house rule it? like I said fun should be the goal not some misguides concept of fairness. It's not the Cure serious wound that made my char out shine the rest of the party when I heal a char from -10HP to Near ful health, in fact the other players shoved three Clw potions down their throat before I got a chance to act. it was the +10 to deplomancy that made me the star of the session.

Personally, I see the advantages and I enjoy the international aspects.

I can see the advantages of rule standardization too I just don't think that they out way the cons. and i don't see the joy in the international aspects of rule standardization. what joy is their in knowing that someone is having a less enjoyable time than they in all rights deserve. yes I know the answer is griefing.

Unless we all follow the same rules, and not selectively choose which rules to apply and which ones to ignore there really is no point to follow rules at all.

If you ignore one rule, why should the GM follow any rule he does not like?

The GM should follow the rules that the party agrees on not what paizo.

we seem to have a different option on what org play means. I view org play from the view on LEgend of the 5 rings it's to arrange play sessions and help develop the rules so that people understand how to play the game correctly(which mean in a fun way).

I don't think that anyone would disagree that "You get your bonus spell slots at the char lvl that you get a standard spell slot of that lvl" is alot clearer than "a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." But I doubt that that will end on in an official rules clarification. Just like it don't give any limit for the number of spells you can prepare a day and also in total.

There used to be a time in organized play (way before my time) where GMs were allowed to modify scenarios, and the results were apparently bad enough to bring us the current RAW situation.

The solution to people agree to play by rule sets that aren't ffun is to teach GM's how make rules set that don't suck, not to force everyone to use the same rules. and all the PFS docs say to use the RAw not use the rules as all the other PFS GMs have agree to and which we won't even atempt to write down yet alone write down in the most accessible way.

It was allready asked on here if IwSA should be interpreted to use spell slots instead of prepare because and it's still split on if the Oracle class removes the limit on the number of imbued sleeps you can have in the wild and it got no replays.

BTw it's bad manors to change the term use to describe The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild in the conversation. and org play is a poor choice for a nick name for it, ita like saying 'humans' when you mean 'John'.

You really don't have to make it harder for yourself by approaching the situation with a confrontational approach to your character

First, I choose hard over imposable any day, and second I only becaome confrontational after people start to get on the lets ban him because he can't help but say things in a offputing way. If I wasn't so sensitive I would be in jail by now I'm proud to say that my confrontational approach lead me to win my defense in a kangaroo court. And in the mental illness community it's call 'Self advocacy' and is encouraged.

that will likely end with other players being annoyed with you before you had the change to leave a good first impression.

I have never succeeded the First impression diplomacy check iRL so I'm not concerned about loosing the opportunity to make it. I've learnedd ot be satisfied that I'm an acquired taste.

OT: I don't thing I should have to play the Autistic card in order to guilt people into giving me the benefit of a doubt and not passing a snap judgment about me base of how they intuit my hidden motives for saying stuff. Like most austics I'm an open book and don't beat around the bush. some don't speak unless they have something to say, others say "If you don't have a nything nice to say don't say anything"
My motto is "ghIchwIj DabochmoHchugh ghIchlIj qanob" The unpleasant truths don't come back to bite the ones that hid them they bite the oppressed

If you are interested to play an oracle at a higher level[\quote] Yeah I made a 1lvl with IwSA because I wanted a high level oracle.:P I wanted a character that gave out CLw spells like the ministry of life gives out ordinations. and I found a RAw way to get it. and pregens don't have IwSA becuase you need to multi class to use it and I've never seen i multiclass pregen.

Quote:

you can be trusted to run around with a flamethrower (since you would just use it to defend the populace against zombie attacks...) does not mean that we can trust everyone.

My point is that Org play should be about giving the flamethrowers to those that can be trusted, not in not trusting anyone with flamerthrowers and leaving the Zombie problem unsolved.

Just making stuff up..? Wha? I can't even even.

If it not indexed by Google then it's not on the net. :P

I just googled the quote and didn't find anything, I missed the footnote on his post

sorry.

But that's FAQ is only about the core book not the advanced players book. and It says spells not spell slots. if the class desc of a wizard gave a 5lvl spell slot that couldn't be used for 5lvl spells(and he did have any normal 5lvl spell slots; still useful for metamagic) then I wouldn't give him the bonus spell slots.

This stims from the fact that nowhere is there a limit on how many spells you can prepare. The "You must have a spell slot capable of holding it available" is nowhere in the googleable universe.

There is references made to a daily limit to the amount he can prepare but I can't even find one ref to a total limit.

Bonus spells are available to you once you are able to cast spells of that level. A "—" on the chart means you can't can't spells of that level yet. A "0" (see paladins or rangers for examples of this) means that you can't cast spells of that level unless you have bonus spells based on your casting stat.

If he has 0 slotthen he can't cast the spell so RAw he doesn't get the spell. it's a example of the specific overriding the general. The Oracle desc just says to that he gets the bonus spells off the table not that he get the bonus spells at outlined in 'Abilities and Spellcasters'

Do I think me saying this will make a difference? No. You've shown that you're going to ignore what it says in the core rule book as well as the FAQ on the topic.

Have fun trying to find a GM that doesn't understand the basic rules for spellcasters and will allow you to cast 5th levels spells when you're level 1.

I've already found one. and the fact that we came to under 10 HPs away from a TPK I think justifies that the character isn't over powered.

(As a small aside, you realize that with your logic a level 1 wizard with 20 intelligence could cast "Cloudkill" which automatically kills any creatures in the area of the spell that has 3 HD or less, right?

No my interpritation is that unless he is at a class level that allows him to learn a spell of that level he couldn't get the spell slot.

"A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all
0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited
schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level
spells of his choice. The wizard also selects a number
of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence
modifier to add to the spellbook." There is nothing about him getting higher level spells at first lvl in the class description.

if paizo released a feat that gave oracle a 4th level that you took as 1lvl wouldn't the oracle get cure sever wounds(or what ever the 4lvl cure spell is)?

The wizard doesn't get a spell until he gets a spell slot for it and he dosn't get a spell slot for it until he get a a specific level. By my logic a wizard would gets the slot which gives him the spell which gives him the bonus slot. if it read "These spells
are added as soon as the oracle reaches a level capable of casting them." instead of "These spells
are added as soon as the oracle is capable of casting them." then no an oracle wouldn't get the bonus slots

I would never write the rules for bonus spell slots in such a riddle unless I was griefing or making quick notes to myself in the middle of the night.

Meaning that, with what you think the rules say, a level 1 wizard can kill an entire party with a single casting of a spell if they're all within 40' of each other and they don't get a save against that spell... But you think that makes any sort of sense and is what the rules are actually saying? Yeah, no... that's not how the rules work.)

Sleep, tie them up then kill them at your leisure. this happened to my party, and it as friendly fire too.

Jeff quoted the FAQ which is clarifying the already clear language from the Core Rulebook.

Google has no record of that alleged FAQ. Seems to me he's just making stuff up to sound authoritative. but the main focus of the question was not the bonus spells it's to you allow Oracles to imbue their spontaneous spells and do you have it block a use of a 4th level spell from being used. and this is a rules forum not a opinion/rulings forum.

I don't by the argument that I wouldn't allow it so therefore it not what is written. when my GM asked if my char was PFS legal should I just have said "If you allow me to play it is."

on a side note doesn't the term for a char to be legal to play technically mean that the player owns the books and Chronicle sheets that are used to create it?

Sebastian is an extremely experienced GM and player and an extremely smart person. In addition to explaining the rules (correctly),

we seem to be having a referential problem. Rules can mean, "The mechinics of how the game operated" and it can mean "the text that describe how the mechanics of the game operate"

My frustration with pathfinder is that the intuitive interpretation for me is not the intended interpretation and I have no way on knowing the intended interpretation and when I ask about every little thing people get annoyed with the constant questioning.

I know that my interpretation probably isn't the right one but I can only consider the other possible interpretations and when ask if it's a valid interpretation of the rules they deny the ambiguity of the wordings and insist that because the intended meaning is obvious to NTwits that it's THE valid interpretation.

You can't sell Mechanics in a box you can only sell explanations of them; wizards of The Cost learned that the hard way with the failure of 4e and the success of 5e, 4e focus on delivering a well described mechanics and ignored rule customization and fluff. people that want highly customized cars don't build there cars from scratch they buy a stock base and then add their customization to it.

4e was a top shelf beer and 5e was a home brewing kit.

People don't play organised play in order to have a standardized rules they play in order to socialize and have fun.

I don't think PFS should try to make everyone play the game like PF's Gygax played it with his friends, but should focus of making sure the player are having fun playing PF.

My points about my build being legal for play are:
*That it's a linguistically valid interpretation of the rules as written.

*PFS says to fellow the rules at writen in order that people don't get frustrated with incompatibilities between different group play styles not in order to give every one the official mechanics.

*It works in my group and that if it works in the group should be the ultimate decider if it's legal for play not if it's how the designers intended it to be played.

-"If you are unable to understand me it's clearly your fault."

It's understandable that you would feel that way. I said that you were unable to understand my and that that I'm really displeased with that situation.

The fact that AUtistic have to bend over backward to get the subtle hidden meanings behind what people say in order to be allow to participate in society and that NTwits won't even lift a finger in order to consider if they are interpreting people correctly seems unfair to me.

-"I am far smarter than anyone else and would need to think down to the level of you idiots."

The NTwit is a reference to the fact the people that use NT to describe anyone that isn't autistic are idiots not that NTs are idiots. I can see how that can be confusing to people outside the Autistic community. Taken literal it means 'the wits of a NT' toohna.wikia.com/wiki/NTwit for those unfamiliar with the terminology.

I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that is saying that Autistics are superhuman for their ability to not get offended when someone points out a fault in their thinking and also to not give people the benefit of a doubt when things can be taken in multiple ways.

May I ask how would you ask, "Don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me where I went wrong in my thinking so that I can correct the problem and not do it again" with out sounding like I'm challenging if your right. No matter what NTs will pick up on the fact that they said someing as fact and you are says, "prove it!"

They say that text in incapable of conveying the emotions behind the words but when I wrote I Email to a girl I had a cruse on I my best to no sound like I had a cruse on them, They commented on what a beautiful love letter it was. :P

It's hard say, "You're pissing me off" and not sound like trolling.

Like I said the intended meaning of what I say is clear and so is the feeling of me saying it. it
s just the intentions for saying it that I have a problem identifying.

. It's a rare skill but it seems to be learn-able to NTs.

It's not the peculiarities of organized play that are erking my it's that it's not the aim of pathfinder to deliver rules that offer a seamless experience.

what are we paying Paizo for? They treat it as if they make PF as a hobby and release it for free. That's why I don't sport Paizo by buying there produces.

-These can two quotes can easily be interpreted as baiting/trolling quotes.

The main point I have to make is that Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game and their writing does not have the aim of delivering rules that offer a seamless experience and cover all the possible interactions.[/quote ]

Quote:

Please think carefully on what you are writing.

I do think heavily on what I say but I don't think like you so don't know how you are going to interpret it. All I can do is consider all the possible interpretations and choose the saying that has the fewist bad interpretations.

Quote:

Those of us responding are choosing our words very carefully.

You say that you "have an OCEAN trust." Please trust that the people responding to you are intelligent, kind people who know what they...

why should I trust random internet users' comment and not trust a professional produced RPG?

Beside you have things backwards I checked myself when I intuited that Sebation was trolling me and assumed that that was in unintended interpretation of what he said. You(the people on this forum in general) are the ones that assume I mean things in the Worst possible light.

Quote:

he also very much wants to help you learn how to navigate the social contract that will help you fit in at PFS games.[\quote]

if wishes were fishs.... Even if he believes he is helping I don't have faith that he will have any luck. in the rare change that he is will into to in the considerable amount of effort required It's unlikely that he would be allowed to continue helping me. I'll be assused of trolling and he will be accused of being condescending for braking things down to the level where I cam understand them.

But dispite it never working before I still ask for people's help.
You knoW that the Nazi stopped reporting bomb threats? all the police Would do is stop the threatened event
(see: https://www.readthesequences.com/Pretending-To-Be-Wise ) I've tried to have discussions about my interpersional skills on forums before(most of them Autist support forums) but When I report possible trolling me that just lock the thread. I'm not going to apologize for doing best and coming up short because don't ask for apologizes for When people do a average effort let alone their best possible effort, and come on shot. Even When I find it annoying.

I'm sorry but I'm Autistic so it hard for me to tell between Rules as written and rules as indented.

Is loot Char or player specific. Can any char purchase an item on players chronicle sheet. and the PSRPG says, "you can never
buy, sell, or trade items with another player" So can a player trade items between his own chars?

It's from the Core Rulebook, page 16. I'm not sure how you get more PFS approved than that.

No it's not the Core book says, " See

If the rules are ambiguous about something should you use the interpretation that gives the most enjoyable play experience regardless if it brakes the game mechanics?

Hi Altacia!

It sounds like the Organized Play environment will not be a good fit for you.

It's not the peculiarities of organized play that are erking my it's that it's not the aim of pathfinder to deliver rules that offer a seamless experience.

I suggest you find a good home group and play with whatever house rules you desire.

unfortunately RPGs aren't popular in MS(these only one PFS group in the state) and I'm not good at socializing because of my autism and not motivated to try because of my Depression, so finding a group of people to play with isn't vary realistic, I would have to first learn how to think like a NTwit so that random strangers I meet don't call the authorities on me when I try to strike up a conversation with them. Then I would have to build up a social network to find interested people.

Sorry for the double post but the forum is giving me problems

I suspect that you are still going to be able to have a good time even without those bonus spells you can't get

I play RPG to create characters and find out their story.

It's not the bonus spells that are turning my off from Pathfinder,
Like I said my GM allowed my bonus spells so it's good thou it might be a ruling he over turns next session. THou he didn't think of looking over my char sheet before time even thou It's my first char and when he asked if is was PFS legal I said it was RAw, and went to hoops to give him a copy of my char sheet trying to imply that I'm new and could use the GM's ruling on it.

It's that my char concept is someone that goes around making honorary clerics by giving out spells, and that that is a correct interpretation of IwSB but I'm never going to be a high enough level to play it because my group likes to roleplay how much trouble they can get into.

Going through all the thought of shoehorning a char concept into the rules only to be told "I know we could have been clearing but we are interpreting the rules in way that forbid your charm try reading our minds to avoid that next time." isn't fun

All the interesting 1lvl Pregens aren't built to be contributing group members and other 1lvl builds are hard to find. I don't have the expertise to build a hard hitting 1lvl char and me and the GM are the only ones that are actually interested in getting good Chronicle Sheets.

So I can't effectively role play or Roll play. To be honest if I didn't have to force myself to socialize because of my depression I wouldn't keep playing.

Fortunately, you can always hold back and give others the chance to shine, but learning when to do so is not easy.

Fortunately I'm the only one interested in Role playing. The other are quit happy seeing how bad of a situation they can get into. Fore example rather than waking the party healer(who had been sleeped) to heal the party members that where at neg HP(no longer bleeding out) after the battle they shoved CLw potions down there throats.

They only one that's complained about losing a chronicle is a GM which is probably why he allowed my game braking build

I had a bit of trouble understanding this post, but I think I can help a bit.

Unlike Paizo and everyone else I'm vary good at saying what I mean. THis confuses peopel because people never say what they actualy mean they beat around the bush not attacking it directly. "I can't tell which bush your trying to beat around because that bush is in the way of you beating."

This realy erks me because I but a lot of effect into learning how to make it sound like a mean what I actually mean and people just talk blunder thou conversations saying anything that pops into their head with out a though to what the meaning of what they are saying is.

The main point I have to make is that Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game and their writing does not have the aim of delivering rules that offer a seamless experience and cover all the possible interactions.

Right they aren't trying to offer an as seamless of experience as possible. So What type of experience are they trying to deliver? To grief the players?

The general approach is to write options (classes, feats, spells) that are easy to read, but usually not ironclad.

You mean 'that are pleasant' to read not 'easy to understand'.

Abilities and Spellcasters
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type
of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards;
Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for
bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high
ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class
level to be able to cast spells or use spell slots of a given spell
level. See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.

YOu put the emphases on "must be of a high enough class

If you are curious, just look at any published Oracle (or any spontaneous caster) stat block,

Why don't you? The Pregens don't alloW for casting spells from a higher spell Slot at all. And most people instenctive house rule that you get the cure spells When you learn a spell of that level not as "When you become able to cast them" as described in the class desc. so it's only natural that the people that built th pregens didn't folloW the RAW principal that is core of organised play.

from the FAQ which is pfs legal

Could you provide a link to that FAQ and Why hasn't to been merged With Pathfinder Society Frequently Asked Questions?

Bonus Spells from a High Ability Score: Can I use these even if my spellcasting class level isn't high enough to give me access to those spell levels?

No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. "

how is "You get your bonus spell slots when you get a regular spell slot of that level" not the more obvious way to say it. what are we paying Paizo for? They treat it as if they make PF as a hobby and release it for free. That's why I don't sport Paizo by buying there produces. Paizo's Writing is right up there With World's Largest Dungeon.

And at lest in D&D3e specifics trump general. So "this is hoW BS Work for classes" is over Written by "this is hoW bonus spells Work for class X".

since we are quoting phantom FAQs, from the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook Frequently Asked Questions:
"You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels."

TO me that means when you reach a lvl that makes you capable of learning a spell of that lvl.

I really don't like the Tautology that "You get the bonus spell slots at he level that you get the bonus spell slots" that is RAw

That change should be listed in the Additional Resources like the other changes along with the other changes

Hi everyone I'm neW to pathfinder in general and this is my first char for pathfinder(I've only played AD&D2ed before)

I'm Autistic(bad enough that I can't Work) so take thing literally and have an OCEAN trust(Assume that most people are fundamentally fair, honest, and have good intentions. They take people at face value and are willing to forgive and forget.) score of 99 so I Naturally assume the intent is as Written.
Plus I'm a savant betatester. My first instincts always end up braking things.

ShardRah

I discussed the IWSB spell and my indented use and gave him a copy of my char sheet and the GM let me play it.

I knoW it Rules as Written unless there is some errata I've missed.

THou I can't use IWSB yet and a bunch of high level cure spells aren't that game bracking so It might just be a Ruling.

I've send him my intended 2lvl build to see if it's legal.

So besides breaking the game is there anything actually against the rules With my char?

the relevent parts from the bonus spell slots from the class desc.
"In addition, she
receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma
score (see Table 1–3 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook)"
"In addition to the spells gained by oracles as they gain
levels, each oracle also adds all of either the cure spells or
the inflict spells to her list of spells known (cure spells
include all spells with “cure” in the name, inflict spells
include all spells with “inflict” in the name). These spells
are added as soon as the oracle is capable of casting them."

Altaica,

They aren't lying to you, and they aren't wrong. You have come here to ask for advice from experienced if sometimes somewhat unsocialized players, they unanimously agree on what they give you (unanimity being rather rare on the forums)

Everyone agrees it breaks the game but my question is it Rules as written?

"W hen Do you iGnore the rules ?
Use the Core Rulebook and supplemental texts when at
all possible to create rulings. Because PFS aims to offer
a predictable, fair, and balanced experience at all tables
internationally, sticking to the texts is critical to ensuring an
even play experience for all players. See the Advanced Topics
handout for more information on adapting to unexpected
character actions."from PathfinderSocietyGM101

and you still question their advice. Odd.

I'd moved on from 'it brakes the game I Wouldn't allow it' to 'but is it PFS legal'

the relevent parts fron the class desc.
"In addition, she
receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma
score (see Table 1–3 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook)"
"In addition to the spells gained by oracles as they gain
levels, each oracle also adds all of either the cure spells or
the inflict spells to her list of spells known (cure spells
include all spells with “cure” in the name, inflict spells
include all spells with “inflict” in the name). These spells
are added as soon as the oracle is capable of casting them."

From the section on Abilities and Spellcasters

Quote:

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. See individual class descriptions for additional details.

A 1st level Oracle does not have a high enough class level to cast a 4th level spell.

That's not from a PFS approved source is it?

It's not clear if the "able to cast spells of a given spell level"
should be read "when casters that have known spell list learn their fist spell of that level" given Paizo's track-record of clear writing.

I though that if it wasn't in the additional resourced or core that it didn't exist in the Game world of Pathfinder Society.
But 10-10 mentions Ra and he's not an allowed deity in PFS.

Is this just another example of Paizo's highest quality of writing? Of is Ra just not worshiped anymore?

You've just hit the nail on the head.

If you look at Altaica's Organized Play character he or she has completely misunderstood how spell level and Bonus Spells works.

So at the moment, this character built is Not Legal since Bonus Spells gained from high Primary Stats, is still bound by the Spell Level allowed by your class level.

My GM agreed ith me that you get all bonus spell slots at level 1.

Could you point us to here in the rules it says you don't get bonus slots until you get a slot of that level normally?

Altaica wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

Oracles don't prepare spells. /cheese

So I don't need the Metamagic?

RAW you don't.

As a GM I'd never let this fly and would use the implied definition of not being able to use the spell slot you cast it from until those conditions occur.

I'm an optimist. I naturally assume that Paizo product's are Worth the paper they are printed on. They could of easily said "You can't use the spell slot until the imbued spell is spent" or "You can only have one imbued spell per spell slot" Hell could have even RTFM and said, "You can't prepare a spell of the same level that IWSA Was prepared at"

I'm unsure if it's meant to being able to cast a spell and having the spell prepared are to diffrent thing?

The only place Were it's even implied that preparation is tied to spell slots is: "When preparing spells for the day, a cleric can leave some of her
spell slots open."

IMBUE WITH SPELL ABILITy says, "You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature." implying that you can have a spell prepared and not have the ability to cast it.

THey seem to go out of their Way to keep them different.

Oracles don't prepare spells. /cheese

So I don't need the Metamagic and need the cleric?

A 1st lvl human Oracle with 20 Cha
Favored Class Option: Add one spell known from the oracle spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the oracle can cast
Choose IwSA
feat Heighten(Metamagic)

Heighten IwSA to lvl5 as it only prevents it being replaced with a 4th lvl spell.

Do I need to dip a lvl into cleric to give out a CLW each day?

I just looked at the Pregen 1st lvl Oracle and under spells it lists CLw as at will. is this a typo?