While I thoroughly enjoyed the Summoner and am kinda "meh" on the Witch class, I have to say one thing I truly dislike about them.
They have their own spell lists.
I am totally against unique spell lists. Please take the route the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Spellthief, and Warmage took. List specific types of spells such as spells from the Healing subschool, Enchantment, Conjuration, and Abjuration schools and all touch spells, or area-spells only and Evocation, or something to that effect.
Because it's REALLY difficult to try and fit spells from outside the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (such as the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and several others) into the spell lists. I hate having to pour through hundreds of pages of material and fit what spells goes where.
If you won't take that route, at least give us hardcore guidelines on what type of spells we should be looking for if we expand the spell lists. It seriously is a pain in the ass and it'd be sweet if you could simplify the matter by taking my original suggestion.
That's the only input I have so far on these classes.
While I thoroughly enjoyed the Summoner and am kinda "meh" on the Witch class, I have to say one thing I truly dislike about them.
They have their own spell lists.
I am totally against unique spell lists. Please take the route the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Spellthief, and Warmage took. List specific types of spells such as spells from the Healing subschool, Enchantment, Conjuration, and Abjuration schools and all touch spells, or area-spells only and Evocation, or something to that effect.
Because it's REALLY difficult to try and fit spells from outside the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (such as the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and several others) into the spell lists. I hate having to pour through hundreds of pages of material and fit what spells goes where.
If you won't take that route, at least give us hardcore guidelines on what type of spells we should be looking for if we expand the spell lists. It seriously is a pain in the ass and it'd be sweet if you could simplify the matter by taking my original suggestion.
That's the only input I have so far on these classes.
I agree, my players hate classes with their own "core" only spell list. I suggest some sort of mechanic (class ability, feat etc.) for adding more spells or swapping spells on the spell list for other thematically appropriate spells of a similar level. It would be nice to see some sort of official system for this in the final product.
Honestly, it doesn't bother me that much either. I'm sure that Paizo will put future spells on the character's spell lists, if appropriate. I know this doesn't address using older 3.5 material, but honestly, 3.5 material can't be "officially" ruled on by Paizo, so one way or another its going to be a GM's call on those.
I personally think the separate lists are nice. I like the idea of being able to have classes that can cross different lists.
It is not that the classes have their own spell lists I'm bothered with, it's the fact that those spell-lists only draw spells from the core leaving many options closed to these classes. There are tons of spells from other sourcebooks these casters will never be able to cast unless the DM house-rules the spells into their list. That's why I would like to see some sort of system for adding or swapping spells from other sourcebooks. This was the approach Wotc did with most of their "alternative" spell-list classes like the warmage and beguiler.
I've always been heavily in favor of the GM and Player discussing and deciding on new spells. If someone thinks X-spell is a good idea, add it for your game. I don't personally think a mechanic is needed for adding the spells. Maybe a small sidebar with school and theme suggestions, but that's all.
In my experience this really doesn't work. My players have a tendency to ignore any classes with limited spell-lists even if I say that I might allow other spells on a case by case basis. My players initial reaction when they saw the summoner and witch was "meh", doesn't get proper spell-casting useless class, even when I tried to point out the other abilities of the classes, the ability to pick and choose their own spells seemed to be the most important issue. Then again my players are really control freaks when it comes to their characters. Personally I would love some sort of spell-swapping mechanic and will probably house-rule something like this in my own Campaign if it doesn't get included in the final class.
I just don't see how you can possibly have these classes without their own spell lists. It's important for the summoner to have certain niche spells, and they can't do that w/o crapping on the wizard. The witch just wouldn't have an appropriate list from any of the suggestions here.
Honestly, the problem with new class spell lists in 3.5 is that they didn't get support. I'm assuming that won't be a problem in future paizo supplements.
I think part of the problem with expanding spell lists from 3.5 is that in 3.5, people felt like they were getting left behind if they couldn't expand their spell lists, because some spells were clearly better than the core options.
I'm all for more spells. I like variety and the ability to customize an theme and to have utility abilities that haven't been thought of before, but I do get the feeling that that the arms race is what drove people to "need" this kind of expanded spell list in 3.5. I could be off base, however.
I just don't see how you can possibly have these classes without their own spell lists. It's important for the summoner to have certain niche spells, and they can't do that w/o crapping on the wizard. The witch just wouldn't have an appropriate list from any of the suggestions here.
Honestly, the problem with new class spell lists in 3.5 is that they didn't get support. I'm assuming that won't be a problem in future paizo supplements.
I agree support is very important to keep spell-casting classes fresh and up to par, but for backwards compatibility I think the classes should have the ability to add or swap existing spells for other thematically relevant spells. This can easily be done by restricting the schools and even sub-schools from where these spells are drawn, something like only conjuration (summoning) and transmutation spells for the summoner and necromancy, enchantment and transmutation (polymorph) for witches f.ex. and making sure to limit how often this can be done by making it a class ability or feat etc.
Can I be the first to point out that since Pathfinder RPG is in its infancy and doesn't have any splat books yet (legit, I mean) that every single class has a "unique spell list." WotC was quick to create a new spellcasting class and then offer ZERO support for it later on (3 books saw warlock invocations, and I think 2 saw shugenja spells). We have no idea how pathfinder is going to support these classes, or if they even will have "unique spell lists" as you put it.
With the way they seem to be approaching these new classes, it feels like Witch will be as a standard as Druid in the coming books, and that every time you flip to the spells section of a new paizo splat book you'll have to pass Summoner before you reach Wizard. Nothing about these classes feels tertiary.
I would like to point out every single caster class has such a list. Wizards and clerics and druids also have them, as well as paladins, bards and rangers. Each and every class has a limited spell list. Some are small some are large
This is no different then a warmage with a book with no warmage spells in it, or one with no bard spells. Each GM needs to do adding of spells on his own. Older books or 3pp stuff all have stuff that is not own your spell list. A wizard spell from the spell compendium is not on your wizards list unless your GM says "ok you can use it"
I think how they will do the spell lists from APG onward is if it belongs to say the summoner or witch or what have you, it will also be on a core classes list as well. with a few exceptions maybe here and there
Seems like the best way to do it
|
I don't agree at ALL with you Razz. Tell me, which core spell list would you have the witch take? Cleric spells don't mesh well with a class that isn't dedicated to a god, and while druid spells do have a bit more to do with witches, they lack the curses, charms and negative spells that witches should have. Wizard spells have to much pizazz, they lack the natural magiks that witches should have, and some of their spells have NOTHING to do with witches and their abilities. And I'm sure I shouldn't even have to make a point about ranger/paladin spells.
Seriously, what better way to flavor a new casting class, than give it a unique spell list? I'm surprised the Oracle doesn't have it's own spell list. If all is the same it becomes redundant...
Creative Director
|
I believe Jason mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm 99% sure that all of the new base classes with unique spell lists will all come with sidebars that talk about those spell lists and give advice on when you as the GM should expand those spell lists when a new product comes out that reveals new spells.
It's certainly something we're thinking about and we'll do SOMETHING to account for the fact that folks will want to expand those spell lists.
Considering that these are BASE classes rather than prestige classes, I don't think it would be that difficult going forward to note "summoner 3" on a spell's level line after "sorcerer/wizard 3," for example. And doing so doesn't invalidate that material for anyone who doesn't have the APG.
We may not have many summoner-only spells in later books, but spells that serve more than one class should be A-OK.
|
I think late 3.5 designers were encouraged to create limited spell lists, after seeing how the 3.5 Wizard, Cleric and Druid rapidly got out of control.
Every book gave them unlimited access to every spell on their list, and any DM that tried to limit that got seen as a killjoy.
However, that is a problem with those classes, and their spell selection rules, not a problem with new spells in principle.
As long as the Oracle/Summoner/Witch/Whatever have limited spells known, like the Sorceror and Bard, then new spell options should not be a problem, since they simply swap one spell for another.
If the problem is that a given spell is simply too good (or too good for its level), then that is a problem with that spell, and no-one should have it (at least in that form, at that level).
If an Evocation is too good for a Warmage/Shugenja to have, then it's too good for a Wizard.
If a curse is too good for a Witch/Oracle/Hexblade, then it's too good for an evil Cleric.
I like the unique spell lists :) It fits flavor and class wise, and I hope Jason does do one for the Oracle, as that would fix some of the problems folks have mentioned in other threads.
|
|
Considering that these are BASE classes rather than prestige classes, I don't think it would be that difficult going forward to note "summoner 3" on a spell's level line after "sorcerer/wizard 3," for example. And doing so doesn't invalidate that material for anyone who doesn't have the APG.
We may not have many summoner-only spells in later books, but spells that serve more than one class should be A-OK.
I like Unique spell lists as well as it adds a lot more flavor to the classes. Plus I agree with Sean and I sure hope Paizo does that. It wouldn't require much effort on their part and would expand all the classes equally at the same time.
|
|
I am gonna jump in and say I like the limited spell lists as well. These are specialty classes and have defined lists. I am also int he camp with those that would like to maybe see a few spells added to these lists in supplemental material down the road. But so far as I can tell there has not been a product yet that had a ton of new spells. I think there was 4-5 in the book on devils and 4-5 in the book on the PF society and I think there may have been a few in the book on Cheliax.
As long as the classes are considered when putting those new spells in I am good with the specialized lists. I do not feel it is the responsibility of Paizo to worry about the spells in non open WOTC splats. That should firmly be up to the DM and the player. A sidebar would be hot, but I would prefer that to something like the summoner getting wholesale access to the conjuration school and then feeling cheated when I don't allow some OP spell in and old splat. This way the DM has solid control over what is being added tot he list and will be part of the process of expanding those lists. Im cool with that.
Besides, some of the classes are pretty strong (like the summoner). I don't necessarily want them to have many more spells or options.
love,
malkav
I am gonna jump in and say I like the limited spell lists as well. These are specialty classes and have defined lists. I am also int he camp with those that would like to maybe see a few spells added to these lists in supplemental material down the road. But so far as I can tell there has not been a product yet that had a ton of new spells. I think there was 4-5 in the book on devils and 4-5 in the book on the PF society and I think there may have been a few in the book on Cheliax.
As long as the classes are considered when putting those new spells in I am good with the specialized lists. I do not feel it is the responsibility of Paizo to worry about the spells in non open WOTC splats. That should firmly be up to the DM and the player. A sidebar would be hot, but I would prefer that to something like the summoner getting wholesale access to the conjuration school and then feeling cheated when I don't allow some OP spell in and old splat. This way the DM has solid control over what is being added tot he list and will be part of the process of expanding those lists. Im cool with that.
Besides, some of the classes are pretty strong (like the summoner). I don't necessarily want them to have many more spells or options.
love,
malkav
I have no problem with unique spell lists, but I would like to see some feat or alternative class ability which allowed the classes to swap or add new thematically appropriate spells.
The Feat you need is called DM Approval
I have no problem with unique spell lists, but I would like to see some feat or alternative class ability which allowed the classes to swap or add new thematically appropriate spells.
+1
Is this SKR speaking for Paizo, or SKR participating in the conversation as a gamer/GM/author? This will come back to haunt you if it doesn't happen, in the former case. >_>
It's SKR the gamer saying, "it should be easy to do this," SKR developer NOT saying, "shut up you moron, that's one more thing you'll need to check in every spell someone writes for you," and SKR-speaking-for-Paizo not saying ANYTHING because he doesn't exist. :)
|
Creative Director
|
Expanding the limited spell lists is a good thing, even for classes like the bard or paladin or ranger. They should have their lists expanded now and then. And Sean's right, it's a simple matter for us to drop "Sum 3" or "Witch 3" or whatever into the LEVEL line of a new spell.
It can get out of hand, of course, because some spells created for some classes are balanced for those classes, but if you expand those spells out to OTHER classes they suddenly aren't. Case in point: The Spell Compendium.
I invented a LOT of the original versions of the spells that got pulled into the Spell Compendium. In many cases, these were Bard only spells, because I like bards and in many articles I wrote for Dragon or books I wrote for WotC, I introduced new bard spells. But the thing about bard spells is that they get their spells much later than, say, wizards. So when you create a pretty potent 6th level bard spell that does some really cool stuff that's very much in line with what a bard should be able to do at 16th level (which is the earliest a bard can cast a 6th level spell), that's fine—especially since he can cast fewer spells per day than a dedicated spellcaster class. That's a power that you're giving a 16th level character. But when you reprint that spell and, say, make it a 6th level wizard spell as well, suddenly you're giving something that should be going to a 16th level spellcaster to an 11th level spellcaster who'll be able to cast that spell a LOT more often than the bard.
This is why, for example, you see bards getting spells like confusion as 3rd level spells instead of 4th level. While the bard's spell level is lower, he's still the same character level (7th) as a wizard when he gets the ability to cast the spell.
Spell lists are staying for some of the classes as a result. It's our responsibility to show GMs how to expand them if they want, just as it's our responsibility to periodically support them with new spells.
Expanding the limited spell lists is a good thing, even for classes like the bard or paladin or ranger. They should have their lists expanded now and then. And Sean's right, it's a simple matter for us to drop "Sum 3" or "Witch 3" or whatever into the LEVEL line of a new spell.
God, I am SO glad to see that this is your attitude. 2 classes each on the major casting lists (cleric/oracle and wizard/sorc) is fine, but giving the witch "Druid casting" or "all enchantment spells" would just kill me on the class.
|
|
I have no problem with unique spell lists, but I would like to see some feat or alternative class ability which allowed the classes to swap or add new thematically appropriate spells.
The Feat you need is called DM Approval. Both classes need to be kept to specifically themed lists and should not have a blanket open admission to whatever spell you want to cast.
Can we have that as an errata on the Cleric, Druid and Wizard, please?
|
|
This is why, for example, you see bards getting spells like confusion as 3rd level spells instead of 4th level. While the bard's spell level is lower, he's still the same character level (7th) as a wizard when he gets the ability to cast the spell.
This is something I *hate* about 3.5/Pathfinder.
Either make all classes gain spells of the same level at the same character level, and use the "Bard 3, Wizard 1 Sorc 2" etc lines in the spell description *or* leave the last bit off the spells altogether, and just give the classes spells of different levels at different character levels.
Using both mechanics is really complicated....
This is why, for example, you see bards getting spells like confusion as 3rd level spells instead of 4th level. While the bard's spell level is lower, he's still the same character level (7th) as a wizard when he gets the ability to cast the spell.This is something I *hate* about 3.5/Pathfinder.
Either make all classes gain spells of the same level at the same character level, and use the "Bard 3, Wizard 1 Sorc 2" etc lines in the spell description *or* leave the last bit off the spells altogether, and just give the classes spells of different levels at different character levels.
Using both mechanics is really complicated....
How in the heck is it even close to complicated unless you're designing? I'm a bard. I get access to 3rd level spells (see my class table) at 7th level, so I can get confusion, because my spell list says it's 3rd level. What it is for the wizard is utterly irrelevant to me to begin with because I'm not a wizard. I'm missing the complicated here.
The man in charge of Palladium was out with his lawyers the moment he had picked up a copy from the gaming stores.
From all one reads about the guy, he's a case all by himself.
Not much to be done - those classes make most sense with tailor-made spell-lists.
As long as Paizo will tag all future spells accordingly, or have a sidebar/web enhancement for everything to show "complete" spell lists, I'd be happy.
I keep seeing talks of "expanding spell lists". While, yes, there should be responsibility over making sure future Paizo-crafted spells are given Summoner/Witch/etc. level lines, the main point of my topic was not for new Paizo-spells, but for spells from WotC or 3PP to expand into the spell lists of these new classes.
My suggestion was to simplify, not unnecessarily complicate, the spell lists by giving these new classes a set of schools/subschools/spell types for them to have access to instead of individually perusing each and every single spell and wondering "Should this be a Witch spell? If so, why? If not, why? What spell level should it be? They could really use this, but then again does it thematically fit?" What makes it worse is when a class, such as the Witch, has both Arcane and Divine spells in it, making the task doubly hard (cause now I have to pour through not just Sor/Wiz spell lists, I have to painstakingly glare through all the Cleric and Druid spell lists).
I shouldn't have to ask 20 Questions on every spell in the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, Player's Handbook 2, Arcana Unearthed, or wherever my outside spell source is from. I had to do that with the Hexblade, and it was not fun at all and very time consuming. And even still, there's a 50/50 chance I am still feeling unsure if I made the right decision of porting a spell into a unique spell list such as the Hexblade's or Duskblade's.
Why do I do this? Cause it's hardly balanced when the "core" classes, like Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc. all receive heavy spell choice boosts and other such classes wane further and further behind in spell selection. It's that simple of a reason to justify why.
I think by saying "Witches can choose spells from the Abjuration, Enchantment, and Necromancy" makes things very simple not only for us players and DMs, but I am sure for the designers also. You can spend your time on enhancing other aspects of the class instead of perusing through each spell to see if it "thematically fits" the class.
Does it lose flavor without its own unique spell list? Not necessarily. What you can do to make it more unique is then add special abilities when those spells are cast, or to the overall class itself. Witches could have an ability, for example, that increases the save DC of their Enchantment spells heavily when compared to other spellcasters. Summoners can be supremely efficient in calling, conjuration, and summoning spells when compared to other spellcasters. An ability that lets them quicken such spells or whatever such. I mean, there're ways of making a spellcasting class more unique without giving them their own unique, individually-keyed spell list.
Prime example is the Spellthief. It has access to a few spell lists from the Sor/Wiz spells and that's it. Done and simple. No complaints. And it's still an awesome class to play. And that's widely because it possessed a horde of abilities that made it very different and more fun than the "spellcasting class with its own unique spell list and a few special abilities" that designers seem to trap a class into.
I like the separate spell lists because it makes things simple. Instead of the following:
"Hey, can my Witch cast (spell)?" "Well, I don't know, what sort of witch is yours?" "Well, my concept is (concept)" "Hmmm, well, that kind of fits, but not really... eh, alright, but come up with a good reason why they know it." Which then leads to, "Okay, now they're learning this spell." "No, that doesn't fit at all." "But I was able to learn (the earlier spell)." "Well, it's not the same." "Why can't you just make an exception again?"
you have:
"Hey, can my Witch cast (spell)?" "Is it on the list?" "No."
Which yes, is a bit limiting, but also simplifies character creation and progress.
|
|
Razz, I hate to break it to you, but while Paizo has said Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible, they are under no obligation to actually sort through WoTC and 3PP's material to tell you what is and is not acceptable for their classes' spell lists.
In fact they can get sued for doing so.
They are giving you guidelines for you to figure out which spells you could use, but other than that, they are legally obligated to not delve into that stuff.
Razz, I hate to break it to you, but while Paizo has said Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible, they are under no obligation to actually sort through WoTC and 3PP's material to tell you what is and is not acceptable for their classes' spell lists.
Dissinger, I hate to break it to you, but you clearly didn't read Razz's post because that's nothing like what he asked for.
|
|
Razz, I hate to break it to you, but while Paizo has said Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible, they are under no obligation to actually sort through WoTC and 3PP's material to tell you what is and is not acceptable for their classes' spell lists.Dissinger, I hate to break it to you, but you clearly didn't read Razz's post because that's nothing like what he asked for.
Zurai I hate to break it to you but...
I keep seeing talks of "expanding spell lists". While, yes, there should be responsibility over making sure future Paizo-crafted spells are given Summoner/Witch/etc. level lines, the main point of my topic was not for new Paizo-spells, but for spells from WotC or 3PP to expand into the spell lists of these new classes.
Razz, I hate to break it to you, but while Paizo has said Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible, they are under no obligation to actually sort through WoTC and 3PP's material to tell you what is and is not acceptable for their classes' spell lists.Dissinger, I hate to break it to you, but you clearly didn't read Razz's post because that's nothing like what he asked for.Zurai I hate to break it to you but...
I keep seeing talks of "expanding spell lists". While, yes, there should be responsibility over making sure future Paizo-crafted spells are given Summoner/Witch/etc. level lines, the main point of my topic was not for new Paizo-spells, but for spells from WotC or 3PP to expand into the spell lists of these new classes.
Dissinger, I hate to break it to you but...
I think by saying "Witches can choose spells from the Abjuration, Enchantment, and Necromancy" makes things very simple not only for us players and DMs, but I am sure for the designers also. You can spend your time on enhancing other aspects of the class instead of perusing through each spell to see if it "thematically fits" the class.
Like I said, you read the first paragraph and launched into a response that had nothing to do with the actual content of the post.
The man in charge of Palladium was out with his lawyers the moment he had picked up a copy from the gaming stores.
Hearsay: Palladium later begged WotC to buy them out, and were refused specifically because of this history.
From all one reads about the guy, he's a case all by himself.
Also hearsay: it took his editors a decade to get him to stop writing all his manuscripts with Crayola felt-tip markers, often in very light hues.
Slightly less hearsay: I have direct eyewitness accounts of him showing up for conventions to run a table, and having to borrow dice. :P
|
|
Except that was addressed by other people more eloquently than me, and he said the entire point was that he wanted it made easier for interaction with WoTC and 3pp materials.
The fact of the matter is, the Witch and the Summoner are very specific tropes and saying "Just take all conjuration spells" doesn't exactly capture the feel for them. Its been stated clearly by James and the others the reason for the closed lists was that they either had spells that didn't fit, or spells that did fit were excluded.
Standardization has been addressed ad nauseum.
But the part I bolded, was what I was explaining. He made it a point to say in summary that his entire argument is that he wants Paizo to make it easier on him when determining what does and does not fit for a class. He wants someone to basically explain exactly which spells from sources Paizo has no ability to legally advise him on, work for the witch and summoner.
He wants someone to basically explain exactly which spells from sources Paizo has no ability to legally advise him on, work for the witch and summoner.
Paizo is perfectly within their legal rights to print "The witch may learn any Abjuration spell, any Evocation spell dealing with lightning or weather, any Enchantment spell, and any Necromancy (curse) spell". This fulfills backwards compatibility and at the same time is perfectly flavorful.
Or, better yet, "Witches may learn any spell from the Witch list. In addition, at 2nd level and every even level thereafter, she may learn one Abjuration spell, Evocation spell dealing with lightning or weather, Enchantment spell, or Necromancy (curse) spell from any class's spell list, provided the spell is of a level one lower than the highest level she can cast".