|
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.
You missed that whole part where I talked about the standardization didn't you?
You missed that whole part where I talked about the standardization didn't you?
That whole six words? With no supporting or explanatory text? No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it didn't appear relevant.
Read my edit to my last post.
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.
Jason addressed this in the stickied Summoner thread.
It doesn't make sense, what you wind up with is a patchwork spell list that doesn't fit any class well.
|
I'll agree that a base class really feels fully fleshed out when it has its own class spell list (and I'm delighted to hear that Paizo will offer support for these class lists in the future).
However...
I would also really like to see a design sidebar to the effect of "Adding Spells From Other Sources" giving guidelines similar to what the OP and Zurai suggest. Something like this maybe:
Adding Spells From Other Sources:
The Witch's spell list provides you with all the spells you need to effectively play a Witch character. However, your GM may allow access to spells from other sources that you'd like to take advantage of. If you plan on adding a spell to the Witch spell list, note that Witches generally gain access to all spells of the Abjuration and Enchantment schools, as well as Evocation spells dealing with lightning or weather, and Necromancy spells with the Curse descriptor. They very rarely gain access to Conjuration or Illusion spells. Even if you follow these guidelines, remember that the final word on new spells is up to your GM - always remember to ask first.
I'll agree that a base class really feels fully fleshed out when it has its own class spell list (and I'm delighted to hear that Paizo will offer support for these class lists in the future).
However...
I would also really like to see a design sidebar to the effect of "Adding Spells From Other Sources" giving guidelines similar to what the OP and Zurai suggest. Something like this maybe:
Please read the stickied thread at the top of the forum. Jason already covers this.
|
|
You missed that whole part where I talked about the standardization didn't you?That whole six words? With no supporting or explanatory text? No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it didn't appear relevant.
Read my edit to my last post.
Actually there was more to it than that, in the first paragraph. Where it talks about why Jason made it a closed list.
Which your edit does wonders to address. Might I also point out that's probably what pathfinder is doing when it explains how to add spells to the witch's spell list. However he wanted something even more standardized.
I'm sorry it was a pain in the butt for him to add hex blade spells, but that was the reality of the situation. The problem is that WoTC abandoned 3.5 for all intents and purposes, to the point of restricting those who work on 4.0. If a company does work on 4.0, I believe the gaming license to do so restricts them from producing things for 3.5 and vice versa.
It was obvious they were trying to kill 3.5 in any manner they could to drum up further support of 4.0.
What does this have to do with the Witch and Summoner? The fact that there are precedents where things get launched and forgotten. Its a rather huge task for them to work with previous product and see how it interacts with the Witch.
If you say all spells that work with weather or lightning, and someone makes a spell that turns you into a colossal lightning elemental, that is immune to damage save from elemental sources, there is no way that would be balanced as a spell. Some publishers have gone so far as to make ridiculous things like that, or even worse stuff. Obviously it becomes an issue of GM discretion, but making an umbrella like "All spells that are Abjuration or Conjuration" doesn't exactly work for me. This is because there are spells that break the traditions of their schools.
One example being the orb spells. (not debating their brokenness just stating that they are in many ways breaking with the conventions of standard conjuration.) So obviously just stating all spells of X Y and Z schools don't work. Obviously then you have to come up with a better guideline for what to add and what not to add.
And I believe that's part of what this play test is about, creating those guidelines. Pushing boundaries, figuring out what does and does not fly. I think part of the reason the playtest isn't divulging said guidelines is they're trying to see if the base list works, and how to repair that.
All of that to simply say what Jason already stated on the matter, to you no less;
Both could, for the sake of arguement, draw from different sections of the wizard spell list. Summoner only gets Conj and Trans (lvs 1-6 only), Witch gets Necro and Enchant. The list is already divided up by theme and you could fill in the rest with bonus or unique spells from other lists or new material.We looked at doing something similar to this, but it was not very feasible. The classes kept getting spells that did not fit theme or were prohibited from getting spells that did.
In the end, I am hoping to include a sidebar with each one of these explaining what sort of spells from other sources should be added...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I personally think the separate lists are nice. I like the idea of being able to have classes that can cross different lists.I agree as well, it makes the class more unique. I don't think 3.5 conversion should be as important as making a good core class.
+1. I like the unique spell lists, and I'm not allowing stuff from Spell Compendium or any other source. If I want to run a FR campaign for a change, I think it's not that hard to adjudicate which FR spells a PF RPG character class would have access to.
If a player is primarily concerned about "limited" spell access, even if the class had other, flavorful and cool abilities to compensate for that "flaw", maybe he's better off with playing a cleric or a druid? I mean, that would mean he always has access to every divine spell the GM allows in his games.
|
|
Please read the stickied thread at the top of the forum. Jason already covers this.I'll agree that a base class really feels fully fleshed out when it has its own class spell list (and I'm delighted to hear that Paizo will offer support for these class lists in the future).
However...
I would also really like to see a design sidebar to the effect of "Adding Spells From Other Sources" giving guidelines similar to what the OP and Zurai suggest. Something like this maybe:
Oh, you mean this post:
Both could, for the sake of arguement, draw from different sections of the wizard spell list. Summoner only gets Conj and Trans (lvs 1-6 only), Witch gets Necro and Enchant.We looked at doing something similar to this, but it was not very feasible. The classes kept getting spells that did not fit theme or were prohibited from getting spells that did.
In the end, I am hoping to include a sidebar with each one of these explaining what sort of spells from other sources should be added...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It seems my concerns are already addressed then. :D
It's nice to know Jason and I think alike :PAs long as the sidebar is clear and straightforward in conveying what sort of spells should be (dis)allowed, I'm happy.
Razz, I understand your point, but some of the 3.5 classes that had mechanics like that left a bad taste in people's mouths. I myself found them really uninspired compared to things like the witch and summoner. Giving them their own lists allows them to have some quirks all their own. And, if they decide to do more classes (which, I hope, after these 6 there's a slowdown), should they continue to follow that rule? Eventually, it will feel like every caster they make would just be a composite of other casters with no unique spell combinations to bring to the table. I would much rather have to judge from spell compendium what is or is not appropriate than have every class do nothing but borrow broad categories from the schools of other classes.
Actually, Zurai was correct in saying that I meant for Paizo to SIMPLIFY the spell lists by NOT giving them their unique individually-keyed spell lists and to simply state what types of spells are allowed. I never did state they were to tell us which spells from beyond their IP should go to the Summoner or Witch.
Again, a unique spell list does not mean a better class. The only thing it has ever done, at least for me, is make it really difficult to adjudicate which non-core spell fits thematically into the spell list. Now, if you only use core books, this doesn't concern you. If you're like me and use many sources for spells, it's a real headache and time consumer. All I suggest is solid straightforwardness. I shouldn't have to wonder "Is this the right spell to add to the Witch class?" And, no, no matter what type of DM you are, it is unfair to lock a player out from new spells just because he isn't playing a Cleric or Wizard. See, when they made the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, for example, they had the right idea. Here's a spell list, and here's an ability to add new ones to it. Dread Necromancers can add a new Necromancy spell to the list at certain levels. Or, just be like the Spellthief, choose a set of schools they have access to.
And, I really do not understand how anyone can legitimately sit there and say it's perfectly balanced for a Cleric/Wizard to ALWAYS have new spells for their spell list since they're "core" and every other spellcasting class with a unique spell list gets hosed down. How can any DM in their right mind justify that to a player? If I ever went to my savvy players and tried that argument, I would get eaten alive. Because they'd be 100% correct. It's unfair to say the Summoner is still as balanced as the Cleric or Wizard but yet their spell list becomes less enticing as the Cleric and Wizard's lists expand ever more. Are we to say that a Cleric and Wizard's spell list is the ONLY thing they're known for and worth playing? Has it been stated that they're the ultimate spellcasters and so no other class can expand their own, ever?
If someone actually ruled that in their games with the Summoner and Witch, they better be prepared to add about 10 new special abilities to that class to compensate for the massive lack of new spells the Cleric and Wizard are fattening up on with the release of any new product with spells. Last I checked, a spellcaster's main abilities ARE his spells, and new spells expanding that list is no different than a Fighter now having an extra 50 feats in a book to choose from.
My suggestion kills two birds with one stone (three, since it can save Paizo a ton of time by not having to worry about adjudicating their own spells to see if it thematically fits the theme of the class). Simplify the game, simplify the spell lists, simplify the ease of expanding those lists. A spellcasting class shouldn't be dependent on just its spell list, you're going to have to give it special abilities and special spell boosts to make it different and balanced with the other spellcasting classes.
Now this leads to one other strong point I am about to make. If your spellcasting class is only unique/cool/flavorful/etc. because it is entirely dependant upon having its own unique spell list, then you're going about creating the spellcasting class the wrong way. It shouldn't be about what types of spells it can cast. Anyone can do that. I can take the Druid class, strike off all the non-Water spells, and call it a Water Bender. That alone is not going to make it class worthy.
Actually, Zurai was correct in saying that I meant for Paizo to SIMPLIFY the spell lists by NOT giving them their unique individually-keyed spell lists and to simply state what types of spells are allowed. I never did state they were to tell us which spells from beyond their IP should go to the Summoner or Witch.
Again, a unique spell list does not mean a better class. The only thing it has ever done, at least for me, is make it really difficult to adjudicate which non-core spell fits thematically into the spell list. Now, if you only use core books, this doesn't concern you. If you're like me and use many sources for spells, it's a real headache and time consumer. All I suggest is solid straightforwardness. I shouldn't have to wonder "Is this the right spell to add to the Witch class?" And, no, no matter what type of DM you are, it is unfair to lock a player out from new spells just because he isn't playing a Cleric or Wizard. See, when they made the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, for example, they had the right idea. Here's a spell list, and here's an ability to add new ones to it. Dread Necromancers can add a new Necromancy spell to the list at certain levels. Or, just be like the Spellthief, choose a set of schools they have access to.
And, I really do not understand how anyone can legitimately sit there and say it's perfectly balanced for a Cleric/Wizard to ALWAYS have new spells for their spell list since they're "core" and every other spellcasting class with a unique spell list gets hosed down. How can any DM in their right mind justify that to a player? If I ever went to my savvy players and tried that argument, I would get eaten alive. Because they'd be 100% correct. It's unfair to say the Summoner is still as balanced as the Cleric or Wizard but yet their spell list becomes less enticing as the Cleric and Wizard's lists expand ever more. Are we to say that a Cleric and Wizard's spell list is the ONLY thing they're known for and worth playing? Has it been stated that they're the...
I get what you are saying, i just think it isnt that simple. I for instance i think the oracle has serious problems because it tried to do something new with a different class' spell list. And its hard to bring the new spell list down to something as simple as nercomancy spells and evocation spells with the lightning descriptor. There is alot more that goes into it then that. And while spells determine options of a caster, they also determine the flavor. If you dont have some specifics there you can quickly lose that flavor.
There is also the problem of non-full level casters. Like the bard or now the summoner (presumably there may be more such classes). They get spells at lower levels because otherwise they are without them for too many levels. How exactly do you explain that in a list that isnt specific?
I wish people would stop ignoring what we've already pointed out once each as a perfect compromise:
Give them a unique spell list.
Then give them an ability to add spells of certain types to their spell list from certain other class lists every so often, like the Warmage.
I wish people would stop ignoring what we've already pointed out once each as a perfect compromise:
Give them a unique spell list.
Then give them an ability to add spells of certain types to their spell list from certain other class lists every so often, like the Warmage.
You have this ability, it is called GM approval
You have this ability, it is called GM approval
Would you please either post constructively or stop posting in this thread? Your Oberoni Principle comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion and only serve to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.
I wish people would stop ignoring what we've already pointed out once each as a perfect compromise:
Give them a unique spell list.
Then give them an ability to add spells of certain types to their spell list from certain other class lists every so often, like the Warmage.
I'm Ok with that. It sounds like Jason was already planning on doing essentially that though so what is the worry?
FWIW, That does not seem to be what Razz is saying at all.
I'm Ok with that. It sounds like Jason was already planning on doing essentially that though so what is the worry?
That's not what was said to be under consideration. What I've heard Jason and the other devs mention is a sidebar saying essentially what type of spells are appropriate to the unique lists. That's a far cry from a concrete rule like what the Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and so on get.
FWIW, That does not seem to be what Razz is saying at all.
See, when they made the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, for example, they had the right idea. Here's a spell list, and here's an ability to add new ones to it. Dread Necromancers can add a new Necromancy spell to the list at certain levels.
|
|
Except its been explained to you, repeatedly, that its not that simple.
You simply don't accept it and insist it can be done easier. We get that you guys want a streamlined process, but I seriously doubt that can happen, as some serious consideration needs to be given. A spell is a powerful tool, and several are capable of single handedly derailing a game for the entire night when used properly.
As has been pointed out, No one wants to be BMX bandit to Angel Summoner.
And the Rule 0 Fallacy isn't quite that. Its your game, you make decisions all the time that change it drastically from the rules of another game. That is Rule 0 in effect. That is the very spirit of Rule 0, and if you are having problems going over what is an isn't acceptable for a class, I'm sorry. That's half of this game, one half is the players going through, the other half is working WITH the GM to have a good experience.
And THAT is what Rule 0 is all about, working with the GM so a fun time can be had by all.
You have this ability, it is called GM approvalWould you please either post constructively or stop posting in this thread? Your Oberoni Principle comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion and only serve to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.
That is not what I am doing. What you are asking for is the ability to add spell off your list. You can do this now. If such an ability was there, it would often be abused and guess what..you would have to get your GM to ok it.
In which case, when they say no. You will get folks saying [whine] But rule x or ability Y says I can have any spell from school z![/whine]
What your asking for is to blanket an auto OK to a class that not every spell from any school fits. That is why we have unique spell lists. As not every spell of any school fits said class
Now paizo plans to give you guide lines to such a thing, but auto allowing a set of schools is counter productive to the feel of the class. If you really want a 3pp Spell and think it fits said class ask your GM But adding an auto I can take any spell I want ability harms more then helps
Except its been explained to you, repeatedly, that its not that simple.
You simply don't accept it and insist it can be done easier. We get that you guys want a streamlined process, but I seriously doubt that can happen, as some serious consideration needs to be given. A spell is a powerful tool, and several are capable of single handedly derailing a game for the entire night when used properly.
So tell me in small baby words, why is it that a unique spell list with the ability to add a very small number of spells of selected types simply cannot be done?
And the Rule 0 Fallacy isn't quite that. Its your game, you make decisions all the time that change it drastically from the rules of another game. That is Rule 0 in effect. That is the very spirit of Rule 0, and if you are having problems going over what is an isn't acceptable for a class, I'm sorry. That's half of this game, one half is the players going through, the other half is working WITH the GM to have a good experience.
And THAT is what Rule 0 is all about, working with the GM so a fun time can be had by all.
If we avoided making rules because you can always just Rule 0 it, we wouldn't have a game. THAT is the Rule 0 fallacy. Rule 0 is fine, but it doesn't take the place of having actual defined rules. Among other things, it doesn't exist in organized play.
adding an auto I can take any spell I want ability harms more then helps
You clearly havn't the foggiest notion what you're talking about. For one thing, that's not what anyone is asking for, so please stop piling on the hyperbole. For another, what we ARE asking for has been done and done well without any credible "ohmigod this makes the class soooo overpowered!" complaints I've ever heard of through years of dwelling in the Wizard CharOp boards.
adding an auto I can take any spell I want ability harms more then helpsYou clearly havn't the foggiest notion what you're talking about. For one thing, that's not what anyone is asking for, so please stop piling on the hyperbole. For another, what we ARE asking for has been done and done well without any credible "ohmigod this makes the class soooo overpowered!" complaints I've ever heard of through years of dwelling in the Wizard CharOp boards.
]
Humm dude, what are you talking about. You have asked for the ablity to take any spell off your list from a few schools. That is indeed a "take spell I want" ability. It will be abused, heavily, and a GM must step in and say "Bob I dont think fantaic nuke of the gods works well with the theme of class x"
Then bob goes "But it's school Y , I can so take it.'...
Gm "Gonna have to say no bob"
Bob " But it's a core class feature!, its unless without expanding my list your crippling my character"
It' not hyperbole it's what will go down across tables, as your taking expanding spell list out of the Hands of the GM, and into the hands of players by telling them they have the right to expand the list with school x
Humm dude, what are you talking about.
I'm talking about your claim about what I said:
adding an auto I can take any spell I want ability
No one has ever asked for a "Take any spell I want" ability. Not in this thread.
It' not hyperbole it's what will go down across tables, as your taking expanding spell list out of the Hands of the GM, and into the hands of players by telling them they have the right to expand the list with school x
So by your reasoning, there should never be any spells added to ANY class's spell list, because it's taking the decision out of the hands of the DM. I guess Paizo better get busy deleting all those new Bard spells they're adding!
|
|
Except its been explained to you, repeatedly, that its not that simple.
You simply don't accept it and insist it can be done easier. We get that you guys want a streamlined process, but I seriously doubt that can happen, as some serious consideration needs to be given. A spell is a powerful tool, and several are capable of single handedly derailing a game for the entire night when used properly.
So tell me in small baby words, why is it that a unique spell list with the ability to add a very small number of spells of selected types simply cannot be done?
If we avoided making rules because you can always just Rule 0 it, we wouldn't have a game. THAT is the Rule 0 fallacy. Rule 0 is fine, but it doesn't take the place of having actual defined rules. Among other things, it doesn't exist in organized play.And the Rule 0 Fallacy isn't quite that. Its your game, you make decisions all the time that change it drastically from the rules of another game. That is Rule 0 in effect. That is the very spirit of Rule 0, and if you are having problems going over what is an isn't acceptable for a class, I'm sorry. That's half of this game, one half is the players going through, the other half is working WITH the GM to have a good experience.
And THAT is what Rule 0 is all about, working with the GM so a fun time can be had by all.
Goo goo gah gah.
Or in other words, read the response Jason gave you in the sticky at the top of the forums, which I cut and pasted into this very thread. He's giving you guidelines for adding spells to the list and your response is, "That's not good enough, I want it to be something like add spells from schools X, Y, and Z!"
Or to clarify, its making the Crunch fit the fluff.
So by your reasoning, there should never be any spells added to ANY class's spell list, because it's taking the decision out of the hands of the DM. I guess Paizo better get busy deleting all those new Bard spells they're adding!
For a man who accused me of hyperbole you like to lay it down. I said no such thing.
You as a player do not get to add any spell without first asking your GM. There never should be an ability that forces a GM to feel like he must allow you to pick a spell from a new source that he feels is not right.
The ability to add any spell you want from a select set of school to your closed spell list is just such a thing.
Or in other words, read the response Jason gave you in the sticky at the top of the forums, which I cut and pasted into this very thread. He's giving you guidelines for adding spells to the list and your response is, "That's not good enough, I want it to be something like add spells from schools X, Y, and Z!"
Are you going to start reading the posts you're responding to any time soon?
I'm Ok with that. It sounds like Jason was already planning on doing essentially that though so what is the worry?That's not what was said to be under consideration. What I've heard Jason and the other devs mention is a sidebar saying essentially what type of spells are appropriate to the unique lists. That's a far cry from a concrete rule like what the Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and so on get.
FWIW, That does not seem to be what Razz is saying at all.See, when they made the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, for example, they had the right idea. Here's a spell list, and here's an ability to add new ones to it. Dread Necromancers can add a new Necromancy spell to the list at certain levels.
I was looking at his most recent post and it didn't seem to be what he was looking for. Regardless, I'm Ok with what you are saying, but I think Jason's sidebar is essentially what you are looking for, a recipe for adding new spells to the spell lists. I guess the difference is one requires judgment and the other is a concrete set of rules... personally I prefer the idea that judgment is involved.
The Warmage power was silly and ultimately undermined the class more than helped it because it prohibited all but a small set of spells. I know that offers the comfort of a nice tidy rule but the result was not impressive.
PS: I guess I'm guilty of jumping into a lengthy thread and not reading all the context.
I said no such thing.
So by your reasoning, there should never be any spells added to ANY class's spell list, because it's taking the decision out of the hands of the DM. I guess Paizo better get busy deleting all those new Bard spells they're adding!
your taking expanding spell list out of the Hands of the GM
Next?
The Warmage power was silly and ultimately undermined the class more than helped it because it prohibited all but a small set of spells. I know that offers the comfort of a nice tidy rule but the result was not impressive.
You're right, but only because the Warmage itself was a lousy class. The ability worked fine for Beguilers and Dread Necromancers because those classes weren't designed to do something the opposite of useful.
I guess the difference is one requires judgment and the other is a concrete set of rules... personally I prefer the idea that judgment is involved.
Yes, that's about the difference. I definitely can see why people would prefer either side. I personally prefer the side of Law over Chaos in this matter ;)
EDIT: By the way, thank you for discussing this like a reasonable person.
I said no such thing.
So by your reasoning, there should never be any spells added to ANY class's spell list, because it's taking the decision out of the hands of the DM. I guess Paizo better get busy deleting all those new Bard spells they're adding!
your taking expanding spell list out of the Hands of the GMNext?
So I guess I told paizo to delete all new spells and never make any thing again.. I really don't recall that...could you post where I said such a thing o' master of hyperbole?
I said no such thing.
So by your reasoning, there should never be any spells added to ANY class's spell list, because it's taking the decision out of the hands of the DM. I guess Paizo better get busy deleting all those new Bard spells they're adding!
your taking expanding spell list out of the Hands of the GMNext?So I guess I told paizo to delete all new spells and never make any thing again.. I really don't recall that...could you post where I said such a thing o' master of hyperbole?
Let it not be said that I'm not stubborn.
You have stated that an ability which says "You may select any spell that meets these requirements and add it to the spells you can cast" breaks the game, because it denies the GM the chance to veto the spell.
I hate to break it to you, but wizards and sorcerers have an ability which says "You may select any spell that meets these requirements and add it to the spells you can cast".
When Green Ronin publishes a new book that is allowed at the table which includes new spells, the Wizard player then naturally wants to add one of the neat new spells to his spellbook.
According to you, that should never be written in the rules, because the GM can't veto it.
There is no functional difference between the Sorcerer's ability to add new spells to the spells he can cast and a hypothetical Summoner's ability to add new spells to the spells he can cast, from a "GM's permission needed" standpoint. There's nothing magical about the Beguiler-esque text that is anti-GM.
Ok man, there is a vast diffidence there. One a classed system list has a balace and a theme to it. You may have spells at earlier level, some spells may well not fit the class. Are you saying a paladin and ranger and should have free reign of the whole of the cleric druid list? That is how it reads.
Spells on a closed list are picked with careful thought, normally with a theme, looking at how it my effect ability or other features of the class. Its a way to balance classes. Adding a new spells without careful forethought can bring all kinds of trouble, it often has far reaching effects
Now I am all for a set of guide lines, showing the kinds of spells that might fit, or how to judge if a spell will balance with the class, but just adding any spell from a set school without forethought invites chaos
And if any body has a new book with spells or feats or magic or what have you, a player should not just assume he is allowed to take it. Even if it is for his class. If you want to try something ask the GM, work with him. If he finds it does not fit, maybe you can make changes to make something fit, or maybe you just have to except you can not have it
Edit : didn't see you added edit part :)
The functional difference between the Sorcerer's ability to add new spells to the spells he can cast and a hypothetical Summoner's ability to add new spells to the spells he can cast is simple.
Class ability. Spells do not exist in a vacuum. Just adding any old spell to a list of a very different class can unbalance the whole thing. Your summoner has ability that outstrip the sorcerer, better HD and BAB, wears armor has a pet and so on. Some spells are off his list for balance. Allow to many and you tip that balance in a very bad way
Ok man, there is a vast diffidence there. One a classed system list has a balace and a theme to it. You may have spells at earlier level, some spells may well not fit the class. Are you saying a paladin and ranger and should have free reign of the whole of the cleric druid list? That is how it reads.
Spells on a closed list are picked with careful thought, normally with a theme, looking at how it my effect ability or other features of the class. Its a way to balance classes. Adding a new spells without careful forethought can bring all kinds of trouble, it often has far reaching effects
Now I am all for a set of guide lines, showing the kinds of spells that might fit, or how to judge if a spell will balance with the class, but just adding any spell from a set school without forethought invites chaos
And if any body has a new book with spells or feats or magic or what have you, a player should not just assume he is allowed to take it. Even if it is for his class. If you want to try something ask the GM, work with him. If he finds it does not fit, maybe you can make changes to make something fit, or maybe you just have to except you can not have it
Edit : didn't see you added edit part :)
The functional difference between the Sorcerer's ability to add new spells to the spells he can cast and a hypothetical Summoner's ability to add new spells to the spells he can cast is simple.
Class ability. Spells do not exist in a vacuum. Just adding any old spell to a list of a very different class can unbalance the whole thing. Your summoner has ability that outstrip the sorcerer, better HD and BAB, wears armor has a pet and so on. Some spells are off his list for balance. Allow to many and you tip that balance in a very bad way
Wow, you just wrote a one-page post to refute an argument no one has made, and that I've already pointed out that no one has made. I've highlighted the relevant sections. I'll give you the same response I gave last time:
No one has ever asked for a "Take any spell I want" ability. Not in this thread.
And I'll ask directly this time instead of letting you dodge the point:
Why is it that a GM can veto a Sorcerer adding a spell to his castables, but is somehow prevented from vetoing a Summoner adding a spell to his castables? Because that's what you're saying would happen.
|
If you're like me and use many sources for spells, it's a real headache and time consumer.
To me, it all boils down to this:
If you want to expand beyond core, it's going to take a little bit of work on the part of the DM. By allowing non-core in your game, you are accepting that extra bit of work. If you want to avoid that headache, the game is still extremely fun and playable using just core, and that also puts all of the players on a pretty even playing field.
It really isn't hard to take a look at a spell; it's certainly not 20 questions. You read the description of the spell your player wants to use, decide if it fits thematically, and then look at the Character Level at which the class it is meant for would gain access to it. Once you know that, look at the new class, decide what Character Level is appropriate (i.e. the same CL) and you're done.
I don't understand why the DM would proactively seek out spells to offer the player. If the player has a favorite spell or a concept that uses a certain type of spell, it's much easier for them to make a request than for you to have to scour all of the OGL sourcebooks and make rulings on spells that may never get used by a player.
I advocate this short examination for any 3.5 material, period. My players are allowed to ask if they can use absolutely anything OGL compatible; by filtering out what I think is inappropriate (be it against flavor, or mechanically over/under powered) with a quick examination, I do myself and the entire group a favor in keeping the game rich and as balanced as I can.
The game is designed to be backwards compatible to a degree, but they do also want to do new things. They can stick with doing variations on the same few spell lists, or they can branch out, and I am in favor of new and original ideas and spell lists.
Because your not just asking to allow 3PP in. Most players are fine with a GM saying no to a non core book. What your asking for would also open every spell in core.
Now when you tell a player no to core, they tend to take it differently then if you say no to a non core source. I have also explained why allowing any spell iist a bad ideal,
If you want any spell in core then you take a wizard or a sorcerer. But adding it to a class designed outside that frame is trouble. You might allow a paladin to add any forth level cleric spell to his list. But you need to really think "Why was this not on his list? Does it fit his theme? Does it cause a loophole or an imbalance?"
To be blunt adding you can take any spell from school x is lazy work. You have not thought how it will effect your class, you have not thought of how it might imbalance an power or tip the scale for something. Not every spell will do something like that. But many GM's think( sometimes foolishly) "Well it was published, so it must be balanced and work fine" and do not think to check to see if adding it does indeed work fine
Seeker, what is so hard about "Any added spell must meet with DM approval"?
As far as I can tell, that would completely eliminate your entire objection. It doesn't need to be stated, but if stating it would get you to stop making inane arguments, I'm all for it.
|
|
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.
Your players are picky powergamers, then. My players were twigged out to see both these classes, particularly the Witch, mostly because they love thematic abilities
The various spells on the Summoner and witch spell lists fit to their specific themes, and it wouldnt be hard to figure out what Spell Compendium spells to allow them (even if you allow such a thing in your game. personally, I use the Spell compendium sparingly. players can pick one or two spells from it if it's the best way to theme their character, and I hand out stuff from it as treasure in the form of scrolls and such)
Seeker, what is so hard about "Any added spell must meet with DM approval"?
As far as I can tell, that would completely eliminate your entire objection. It doesn't need to be stated, but if stating it would get you to stop making inane arguments, I'm all for it.
You know man I have tired to talk with you but you seem to back track alot
I first said "You have this ability, it is called GM approval "
and you then said
Would you please either post constructively or stop posting in this thread? Your Oberoni Principle comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion and only serve to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.
Now your saying GM approval solves the issue?? So rule zero is bad until it works out the issue someone else has with what you want changed.
Ah I see, I am done here
Seeker, what is so hard about "Any added spell must meet with DM approval"?
As far as I can tell, that would completely eliminate your entire objection. It doesn't need to be stated, but if stating it would get you to stop making inane arguments, I'm all for it.
I think the problem with this is, that it returns to Rule 0. The GM can already allow you to add any spell he approves of to your list.
If you add in a 'You can add any conjuration spell to your list' and then qualify it with 'Only if the GM approves', all you do is promote arguments between GM and Player, and it's redundant when combined with Rule 0.
I've not found anything in the book that says 'You may do X if the GM approves'. There's a reason for that. Putting in a rule 'with GM approval' usually causes arguments. Better to have no rule or just a rule that says 'You can do X' rather than throw intentional bones of contention into the play.
Seeker, what is so hard about "Any added spell must meet with DM approval"?
As far as I can tell, that would completely eliminate your entire objection. It doesn't need to be stated, but if stating it would get you to stop making inane arguments, I'm all for it.
You know man I have tired to talk with you but you seem to back track alot
I first said "You have this ability, it is called GM approval "
and you then said
Would you please either post constructively or stop posting in this thread? Your Oberoni Principle comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion and only serve to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.Now your saying GM approval solves the issue?? So rule zero is bad until it works out the issue someone else has with what you want changed.
Ah I see, I am done here
You seriously cannot see the difference between these two bits of text?:
1) At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, you may add one spell to your spells known that meets XYZ restrictions. Any added spell must meet with DM approval.
2) <this space intentionally left blank>
Seeker, what is so hard about "Any added spell must meet with DM approval"?
As far as I can tell, that would completely eliminate your entire objection. It doesn't need to be stated, but if stating it would get you to stop making inane arguments, I'm all for it.
I think the problem with this is, that it returns to Rule 0. The GM can already allow you to add any spell he approves of to your list.
If you add in a 'You can add any conjuration spell to your list' and then qualify it with 'Only if the GM approves', all you do is promote arguments between GM and Player, and it's redundant when combined with Rule 0.
I've not found anything in the book that says 'You may do X if the GM approves'. There's a reason for that. Putting in a rule 'with GM approval' usually causes arguments. Better to have no rule or just a rule that says 'You can do X' rather than throw intentional bones of contention into the play.
That's exactly my point, mdt. Seeker has been squalling that adding text that let people choose their spells would remove DMs' God-given rights to veto things. However, nothing can do that. Rule 0 doesn't need to be stated after every ability, but seeker seems to want that and doesn't seem to realize that there is no difference between stating it explicitly after every line of text and just stating it in the front of the core rulebook and saying it always applies to everything.
1) At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, you may add one spell to your spells known that meets XYZ restrictions. Any added spell must meet with DM approval.
2) <this space intentionally left blank>
The difference is that (1) could drastically limit the Summoner's (knowable) spell list, depending on how it's interpreted.
1) I just picked up a new Paizo sourcebook with oodles and oodles of spells. About sixteen of them would obviously be very appropriate to add to the Summoner spell list. Hey, DM - can I just add these to my list of learnable spells right now? Or can I only learn non-Core spells on levels divisible by three, like this rule sort of implies?
2) I just picked up a new Paizo sourcebook with oodles and oodles of spells. Hey, DM - I just advanced to 7th level, can I learn Summon Pokemon II?
Scenario (1) has confusion over the rule. Scenario (2) does not.
Does that make sense?
The difference is that (1) could drastically limit the Summoner's (knowable) spell list, depending on how it's interpreted.1) At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, you may add one spell to your spells known that meets XYZ restrictions. Any added spell must meet with DM approval.
2) <this space intentionally left blank>
And 2 can't? I'm sorry, I reject that "difference". There's a difference there, but that ain't it.
And 2 can't? I'm sorry, I reject that "difference". There's a difference there, but that ain't it.The difference is that (1) could drastically limit the Summoner's (knowable) spell list, depending on how it's interpreted.1) At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, you may add one spell to your spells known that meets XYZ restrictions. Any added spell must meet with DM approval.
2) <this space intentionally left blank>
I agree that (2) CAN restrict the Summoner's spell list if the GM decides, "no, you can't have non-Core spells on your list." However, the GM can also decide that under (1): "Hey GM, can I learn Summon Pokemon? It fits XYZ restrictions!" "No, it's non-Core, I don't play that way."
Since that's a similarity, I ignored it. (Is there something you see here that I don't - another way that (2) restricts the Summoner's list?)
However, (1) differs from (2) in that it implies that a maximum of seven non-Core spells can ever make it on to any Summoner's list. I hope that makes my point more clear.
__
Would you mind explaining explicitly what the difference you see is? I know there are differences beyond the one I've pointed out, but I'm unclear on which particular difference you think is relevant (and for that, you have my apologies).
Would you mind explaining explicitly what the difference you see is? I know there are differences beyond the one I've pointed out, but I'm unclear on which particular difference you think is relevant (and for that, you have my apologies).
Not at all.
The only major difference is explicitness. Version 1 of the rule explicitly allows material that fits the class's theme, while version 2 of the rule is literally as vague as is possible, and could (and will, in many cases) be interpreted to mean that if a spell doesn't have Summoner X on the level entry, it's not allowable for Summoners, nevermind that the spell is balanced and fits perfectly with the class and the character. It's true they could say the same thing about the explicit text, but usually DMs are far more likely to veto (or ignore) implicit rules rather than explicit ones. If it's intended for the Summoner to be able to expand his spell list beyond what's in the APG, then it's important to say that. Preferably in explicit language.
By explicitly stating that the class does get to choose spells from other sources -- sources which, for whatever reason, don't include explicit Summoner spells, for example -- it gives players more freedom in creating their characters, without in any way restricting the DM's right to veto (because nothing can do that short of the players walking out, which is also their right). Yes, it could happen that the DM can say "well, this spell is cool and fits perfectly with your character but it doesn't meet the XYZ restriction, so no", but it's just as easy for the DM to say "well, this spell is cool and fits perfectly with your character but it isn't a Summoner spell, so no"; as you say, factor the common denominator out. You're left with text that permits characters to expand and explore, rather than a lack of text that permits them to do so.
---
This is a side note, but I also object to the "this spell doesn't make sense for the class even though it fall under the correct categories" objection, which is what Dissinger and to a lesser extent seeker keep throwing at me. Yes, that's what Jason cited. I reserve the right to disagree with Jason and tell Paizo that I think they're wrong in this regard. If we didn't have that right, these boards would be useless.
Anyway, to get back to the point, we solve that objection by granting classes unique spell lists in the first place, then allowing them to import spells. The reason that solves the objection is because those spells are not on the Summoner list. In other words, Jason is perfectly right to say that "all Conjuration [summoning] spells may not fit with the Summoner". However, by listing the spells he does think fit the class (ie, the spell list) and allowing the player (with implicit DM approval, as always) to add spells to the class, he allows the player to make the class his own. It's very much like what Paizo did with, for example, the Oracle Foci: most of those spells are not on the Cleric list. The difference is that the Foci are a predetermined list that may not fit exactly what the player's character is about, while the list the player picks will always be what the character is about.
I'm not sure I explained that well. It's 4 AM and I'm pretty tired. I'll come back tomorrow and see how confused I made people.
Would you mind explaining explicitly what the difference you see is? I know there are differences beyond the one I've pointed out, but I'm unclear on which particular difference you think is relevant (and for that, you have my apologies).Not at all.
[cogent explanation elided]
Hmm. I am also fatigued and possibly not thinking clearly, but how is this for a compromise?
(3a)"The Summoner may, of course, learn spells not on this spell list through original spell research, in a manner similar to that available to the Sorcerer (see Core Rulebook pg. whatever).
(3b) "Additionally, your GM may allow that certain arcane spells from compatible supplementary game products be added to the Summoner's list of spells knowable, just as with the wizard and sorcerer; X and Y spells of the Z and W subschools are particularly likely to be appropriate, but as always, your GM has the final say on imported material."
That's almost uncomfortably close to a pure rule-zero approach, but I don't think it is identical. Rule (3), in each part, explicitly mentions the addition of non-"Summoner lvl X" spells to the Summoner list (which is the advantage of (1) as I perceive it), while the whole of rule (3) avoids specifying a particular number of spells, or a level-framework for their addition, or any other such thing that would imply a restriction of the GM's ability to port spells in (which is the advantage of (2)).
What downsides do you see? (Or is this acceptable as it stands?)
|
|
Yeah, should have made that more clear. It isn't too complex in play, but in design, or things related to design, it is.
Your players are picky powergamers, then. My players were twigged out to see both these classes, particularly the Witch, mostly because they love thematic abilities
The various spells on the Summoner and witch spell lists fit to their specific themes, and it wouldnt be hard to figure out what Spell Compendium spells to allow them (even if you allow such a thing in your game. personally, I use the Spell compendium sparingly. players can pick one or two spells from it if it's the best way to theme their character, and I hand out stuff from it as treasure in the form of scrolls and such)
LOL, I guess you are right about my players being power-gamers, but I have also made it very clear that any new material added to my game needs DM approval first. I have actually only seen a couple of spell-casters at my table that wasn't a wizard and cleric since I started to play 3rd edition. The only players that seem to choose classes with limited spell-lists are the new and inexperienced ones.
While I like the summoner and witch, and I think their spell-lists look pretty good and thematically appropriate I would still like to see a rule allowing players the ability top expand or at least change spells to allow for more versatility between different characters.
It's not a matter of "can not be done." It's more a matter that "should not be done." The Summoner has a specifically defined niche. He's the coach and trainer of a mystical beast that does the bulk of his fighting for him. He does not have the broad grasp of magic that's taught to a wizard or inbred to a Sorcerer. So that means he should not be granted carte blanche access to any school of magic, even Conjuration.
What about the bard? He has a similar spell-casting progression, yet his spell list gets expanded upon quite often. Both classes have an in-built way of limiting this by the fact that they have a limited number of spells known. While i agree that the summoner isn't a focused spell-caster I still think he should have his spell list expanded upon as much as the bard have.