APG Spells. Exclusive Spell List?

[Darkholme]

One thing that kindof bugs me from the APG, is that the spell lists for all of the new casters don't include spells from sources beyond PFCore and the APG.

This makes the Wiz/Sorc/Cler/Druid/Bard/Pal/Rgr have much more expansive spell lists. It was something that really annoyed me in 3.5 as well. It's like: The ones in the players are supported, if you want to play a class we put out in another book, you're getting shafted for spell selection.

Am I the only one who feels that way?

I wouldn't mind seeing errata for each of the other books that have come out which add appropriate spells from the other paizo books to the APG classes. Not new spells, just take the appropriate ones that were printed already, and add them to the appropriate lists.

I could compile a list myself for my home games, but I'd like to see something official for PF Society Play, and so that I could play x, with x spell that makes sense to be on the list, but isn't because it was printed in a smaller splatbook in other games, without having to twist the GM's arm..

[Tikael]

Are you talking about adding spells from Paizo books like the Adventure paths or companion books? Since they were made before the new classes were out it's pretty obvious that the new classes would not have those spells in a list since they were added in books that Paizo made before them. If the spells fit thematically with the new classes then ask your DM, but why should Paizo spend time reprinting material that has already been printed. Much though I would agree that some of those spells could use being added to the new class spell list I would rather see new material being printed.

If you are talking bout non Paizo books, like the 3.5 spell compendium or third party pathfinder books... Paizo does not have rights to publish that material.

[Darkholme]

Tikael wrote:

Are you talking about adding spells from Paizo books like the Adventure paths or companion books? Since they were made before the new classes were out it's pretty obvious that the new classes would not have those spells in a list since they were added in books that Paizo made before them. If the spells fit thematically with the new classes then ask your DM, but why should Paizo spend time reprinting material that has already been printed. Much though I would agree that some of those spells could use being added to the new class spell list I would rather see new material being printed.

If you are talking bout non Paizo books, like the 3.5 spell compendium or third party pathfinder books... Paizo does not have rights to publish that material.

Yeah, I mean the spells from the Adventure Paths and Companion Books. I'm not suggesting they reprint the spells, just saying that the class should have those spells in the spell list. I'm partly just remembering how in 3.5, all the classes from the Players had new spells in virtually every splat book, but any class that wasn't in the players never seemed to get new spells in *ANY* splatbook (except the book they came from).

Hmm.

Maybe comprehensive and up-to date spell lists of all the caster classes could be kept on this site. That would be useful.
They wouldn't have to print any of the spells, just the names, the one line description, and a shortform for the book they came from [APG]. Then including them for the new classes would be simple.

Having a seperate list for PFS would be good too, they don't need to include it in the PFS Guide, a seperate pdf would be great, or one for each caster class.

[Grey Lensman]

It does appear that the worst part of what you remember isn't going to be repeated. The Ultimate Magic book due out in April of next year states that it has Eidolon options as well as new hexes for the Witch, so it stands to reason that the new APG classes will all see some spell love from it as well.

[Tivilio]

I agree, there are a lot of great spells printed in books other than the Core & APG. Darkholme isn't askingfor new spells (although he's not saying he doesn't want new ones), nor is he asking for them to reprint the spells that were previously printed; he is only asking that there be a set of lists detailing which spells from non-core books belong on the spell lists of the APG classes.

E.g. the spell Ancestral Communion from Dwarves of Golarian is a Bard and Cleric spell, but maybe it should also be on the Oracle or Witch list?

Or maybe the spell Sacrifice from Book of the Damned: Volume 1 is not only appropriate for the Cleric and Sorcerer/Wizard spell lists, but for Summoners and Witches as well.

Yes, I will probably house rule them too, but for Pathfinder Society play, it would be wonderful if we got some clarification on which of these spells our APG classes can use too.

[Louis IX]

It has also irked me that classes and spell lists from separate product lines don't adapt to each other without a major overhaul (and GM involvment)

Perhaps, instead of specific lists, there should have been something like this:
1) introduce new class X
2) X gives the ability to cast spells (or use spells in a non-spellcasting version, like mutagens, bombs, hexes, etc)
3) these spells belong to a list defined using specific criteria, for example:
- "all nature-related spells"
- "all charm/compulsion spells except those with no saving throw"
- "all arcane necromancy and divine transmutation spells"
- etc.
4) if cherry-picking spells, give reasons that could be translated into criteria for #3
5) introduce possible new spells for X, with possible availability for other classes
6) give "current" consolidated list of spells

$0.02

[james maissen]

Darkholme wrote:

One thing that kindof bugs me from the APG, is that the spell lists for all of the new casters don't include spells from sources beyond PFCore and the APG.

This makes the Wiz/Sorc/Cler/Druid/Bard/Pal/Rgr have much more expansive spell lists. It was something that really annoyed me in 3.5 as well.

WOTC had this problem and their lazy solution was to either:

1. Let new classes 'learn' something of type this, or from that list.
2. Simply use spell list from class X.

Neither are really that palatable, but both are easy to do.

It depends how energetic and creative Paizo wishes to be. Certainly they have proven themselves to be a better consumer friendly company than their predecessors, so only time will tell.

One thing that would be an easy thing to do would be a dedication to including the new spells on additional lists. Now this could be done in two ways: directly in the books or as a free downloadable supplement.

I personally think that the later is a better solution. Imagine if there was a supplement now that listed out all the spells that could be added to all of these new classes that covered all the prior material. It wouldn't give the material, but it would list it out.. just give the spell list.

If anything I would see this as only reinforcing purchasing of older products, and this can't be a bad thing for Paizo.

As a side note this would help the designers keep track of what all that has been put out there as a Paizo Pathfinder product. Something that WotC definitely lost track of.

-James

[LazarX]

Darkholme wrote:

One thing that kindof bugs me from the APG, is that the spell lists for all of the new casters don't include spells from sources beyond PFCore and the APG.

This makes the Wiz/Sorc/Cler/Druid/Bard/Pal/Rgr have much more expansive spell lists. It was something that really annoyed me in 3.5 as well. It's like: The ones in the players are supported, if you want to play a class we put out in another book, you're getting shafted for spell selection.

In my campaign a player can't expect to come to my game with Brand X book of divine and arcane spells and expect instant availablility of the whole shebang simply because he's one of the general casters of the appropriate type. I'm very cautious on adding new material especially in the spells department.

If you have more than the two requisite brain cells you need to DM a game then you're perfectly capable of judging the addition to a class of a restricted spell list as opposed to a general one. Keep in mind though that those spell lists are restricted with GOOD reason. The restricted spellcasters get other benefits for the tradeoffs they made in selecting that class. A Summoner should NOT get has many spells available to thier spell levels as a Conjurer Wizard, or even a conjuration heavy sorcerer.

[LazarX]

Tivilio wrote:

I agree, there are a lot of great spells printed in books other than the Core & APG. Darkholme isn't askingfor new spells (although he's not saying he doesn't want new ones), nor is he asking for them to reprint the spells that were previously printed; he is only asking that there be a set of lists detailing which spells from non-core books belong on the spell lists of the APG classes.

I understand what he's asking for. The answer depends on which of two scenarios we're looking at.

1. Pathfinder Society Play... an obvious no because network play depends on homogenity of player choices as well as control of what's available to the players so the game can be reasonably managed by the Paizo Decembervirate.

2. Home play. The game does not need a rule which mandates GM's how to include other magic in their games. There is no need to write specific rules and rules specifically generic when they would be so simple that noe that writing them down would be a waste of paper. It's simple... you're the GM, if you feel that the spell is a good addition that won't unbalance your game than it's your decision to allow it. and how you choose to allow it. There are a continum of choices between not allowing anything 3rd party EVER and opening up the spigot and chopping away the valve.

I have a feeling that most of the thrust for these threads are coming from players that want to walk up to their GMs and say "Here... these are spells I'd like to have for my character... GIMME." We don't need Paizo to give us a book titled . "How To Use Common Sense to Adjust Your Game." Although the Gamemastery Guide does provide a lot of help in that area.

[james maissen]

LazarX wrote:

2. Home play. The game does not need a rule which mandates GM's how to include other magic in their games. There is no need to write specific rules and rules specifically generic when they would be so simple that noe that writing them down would be a waste of paper. It's simple... you're the GM, if you feel that the spell is a good addition that won't unbalance your game than it's your decision to allow it. and how you choose to allow it.

I think this is missing the mark.

Sure a DM could decide which spells should also be witch spells, etc. But in that vein all the new spells need not list wizard/cleric/etc and leave it to the DM. Or you could leave coming up with new spells to the DM for that matter.

The point is that Paizo is coming out with new classes and had previously come out with new spells. Had these classes existed previously many could have been made to be on those lists.

So there are two things here:

1. When new spells come out from now on, having these new base casting classes considered for being listed on those spells. This is just not dropping a new base class and then forgetting about it. I have enough faith in Paizo that I believe that they are not going to do this. Though I hope that they are diligent enough to make sure that this is fully considered for each new spell that they bring in from now on.

2. When new classes come out, it would be nice if they would look at all the spells in the Pathfinder milieu rather than just the 'core' material. Now this need not be enumerated in the APG, but rather a supplement would suffice. This is a good deal of work, but it keeps the game whole and is worthwhile.

Relegating this to DMs is not good form as I said, the entirety could be relegated to DMs to make new classes and the like. The point of supplemental material is to aid DMs, and an all-inclusive aid is much better than one that is part-way done.

LazarX wrote:

1. Pathfinder Society Play... an obvious no because network play depends on homogenity of player choices as well as control of what's available to the players so the game can be reasonably managed by the Paizo Decembervirate.

For those whose main interaction with Pathfinder is through Pathfinder Society play this is all important.

Either this work falls upon Josh (which seems quite unfair) to decide upon himself what included Paizo new spells should fit these new classes or it simply doesn't happen.

The later brings about a disparity that the OP was addressing. Spells that easy fit the motif of a given new class will never become available to them because of the order or nature of publication. This makes the new classes a kind of second class citizen in this regard, which is a shame.

-James

[LazarX]

To Answer James points:

1. Again that really depends on what you think of the Paizo staff, they either will do it or they won't. The answer to that is a matter of faith... (or your lack of it)

2. I'm pretty sure that when they add new material they consider everything that's already in the game as well. They didn't add prestige classes without considering thier commitment to keeping single-class progression a viable choice as opposed to the loser move it was in 3.x.

PFS. Josh and his campaign do this kind of work already. PFS play does have a list of BANNED spells and restricted purchases from the core rules and specific network rules regarding spells with long durations which are a neccessity for network play. If Paizo publishes a work of new spells, you can be very sure that they will note as to which should be additions to the specialised spell lists. They've shown a very good ability to follow through on what they've started. 3rd party material.. as usual you will be on your own although there is no stopping anyone from publishing a supplemental list of Summoner, Inquisitor, and Witch spells for use by home campaigners.

But then again this is a lesser problem for Summoners and Inquisitors as they have a FIXED number of spells they can learn. You're not going to be remaking the character every time Joe Blow posts a new spell he created on the forums after all.

[Snorter]

LazarX wrote:

PFS. Josh and his campaign do this kind of work already. PFS play does have a list of BANNED spells and restricted purchases from the core rules and specific network rules regarding spells with long durations which are a neccessity for network play. If Paizo publishes a work of new spells, you can be very sure that they will note as to which should be additions to the specialised spell lists.

Well, we've yet to see.

What we have certainly had in the past is a commitment to including non-Core material, but only insofar as listing the material as 'legal for play'. Which means, 'legal for the core classes to use'.

We have yet to see if they will produce a list expanding the non-Core spell lists. What the OP is after is a definitive statement that 'that Conjuration spell is a natural fit for the Summoner', or 'that Paladin spell is a natural fit for a Good Inquistor'.

As always, no-one will be allowed to bamboozle their GM.
All non-Core options being used by a PC have to be brought in paper or viewable pdf format to every game that PC plays.

[archmagi1]

one could always find a spell in another source that fits their character's theme, speak with their GM, and undertake a quest to find a reclusive witch known to cast this spell, or speak with an outsider to gain the power over this conjuration or somesuch. generally if its not in the PRPG book, most GM's will consider them to be rarer, but who knows, if you ask, your GM may say 'sure, that can be one of the spells you learn when you level up.'

i really don't see why folks are begging and pleading for paizo to make a 'guide' for adding spells to lists. this should be something between the player and the GM and an opportunity for that PC to experience something fun to get that rare bit of power.

[Zurai]

archmagi1 wrote:

i really don't see why folks are begging and pleading for paizo to make a 'guide' for adding spells to lists. this should be something between the player and the GM and an opportunity for that PC to experience something fun to get that rare bit of power.

False dichotomy. There's no reason you can't have both.

[Snorter]

LazarX wrote:

But then again this is a lesser problem for Summoners and Inquisitors as they have a FIXED number of spells they can learn. You're not going to be remaking the character every time Joe Blow posts a new spell he created on the forums after all. (emphasis mine)

True, these PCs will tend to remain similar from game to game, rather than being reborn from the ground up every session, like Cleric/Druid/Wizard.

But the potential exists for using found scrolls and wands, or for commissioning/borrowing them between games, which could be simplified if it's agreed that spell X is actually on their list.

And, this isn't about 3rd-party material, or fan-made material.
This is about material created by Paizo, for Paizo customers, that has already been weighed by Paizo staff, as being balanced for play in Paizo's Adventure Paths, by Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerors and Wizards.
They've already opened the gate to this material, for use by over half the Core classes.
If it's overpowered, then the damage is already done. There's no reason to ration it out, like Ebeneezer Scrooge, to five new classes, most of whom have less spells known, and gain new spell levels later than the Usual Suspects (C/D/W), who have broken countless campaigns, and jumped up and down on the remains, for the last 10 years of 3.? play.

Plus, there's other issues at stake, even with the Core spells.

The Summoner list jumps from Summon Monster II, at level 2, to Summon Monster IV, at level 3.
A pedantic reading of this list would forbid a Summoner from using a scroll of Summon Monster 3, even if he were level 7+, and even if he actually knew Summon Monster IV as one of his choices.
In other words, he does know how to summon every potential creature on that scroll; he can even summon multiples of every one of those creatures.
But according to RAW, he can't use that scroll, to summon a single example of those creatures, even though he can use a scroll of Summon Monster IV to flood the field with multiple clones.

There are times when I may prefer to summon a creature from the level 3 list, rather than level 4. Utility purposes, for a start (level 3 has Shark, level 4 has no swimmers, except Medium water elementals or water mephits, neither of whom are much good at biting through a submerged rope, or visually intimidating a swimming enemy). And I may not want, or need, to summon multiple sharks to do a job that could be done by one.
A pedantic GM could force a Summoner PC to pay through the nose, for a scroll of Summon IV, when he really only requires a Summon III; or Summon VII, instead of Summon VI.
His costs go through the roof when preparing for the next expedition, only to roll poorly, and get a single lower-level creature anyway.

That's the kind of reality-disconnect we end up with, if the APG-spellists don't get officially expanded.

[Matthew Morris]

james maissen wrote:

Darkholme wrote:

One thing that kindof bugs me from the APG, is that the spell lists for all of the new casters don't include spells from sources beyond PFCore and the APG.

This makes the Wiz/Sorc/Cler/Druid/Bard/Pal/Rgr have much more expansive spell lists. It was something that really annoyed me in 3.5 as well.

WOTC had this problem and their lazy solution was to either:

1. Let new classes 'learn' something of type this, or from that list.
2. Simply use spell list from class X.

Neither are really that palatable, but both are easy to do.

Actually, I don't mind that mechanic, whether it be the Warmage option in the PHB II or my own 'insightful discovery' for the arcane legionary. It does allow you to make your character unique, whether it be the warmage getting haste or the arcane legionary getting fireball. It's an easy way to allow spells to be expanded into 'fixed lists' w/o overwhelming or breaking the class.

[Snorter]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Actually, I don't mind that mechanic, whether it be the Warmage option in the PHB II or my own 'insightful discovery' for the arcane legionary. It does allow you to make your character unique, whether it be the warmage getting haste or the arcane legionary getting fireball. It's an easy way to allow spells to be expanded into 'fixed lists' w/o overwhelming or breaking the class.

Shouldn't we apply the same restrictions to the Cleric, Druid and Wizard, too?

The divine casters are especially grating, since a GM can slow down access to non-Core arcane spells by simply not having them be found as scrolls or in spellbooks.

I do get exasperated by players declaring they are casting non-Core divine spells in mid-session, as a fait accompli.

But then, I'm old-school, and remember when Wizards had a cap on spells known per spell level, except at Int 19, when mental stat-boosters were virtually impossible to find.

[Matthew Morris]

Snorter wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Actually, I don't mind that mechanic, whether it be the Warmage option in the PHB II or my own 'insightful discovery' for the arcane legionary. It does allow you to make your character unique, whether it be the warmage getting haste or the arcane legionary getting fireball. It's an easy way to allow spells to be expanded into 'fixed lists' w/o overwhelming or breaking the class.

Shouldn't we apply the same restrictions to the Cleric, Druid and Wizard, too?

The divine casters are especially grating, since a GM can slow down access to non-Core arcane spells by simply not having them be found as scrolls or in spellbooks.

I do get exasperated by players declaring they are casting non-Core divine spells in mid-session, as a fait accompli.

But then, I'm old-school, and remember when Wizards had a cap on spells known per spell level, except at Int 19, when mental stat-boosters were virtually impossible to find.

I don't mind it so much for the 'Core four' (well five counting the bard) Two reasons.

I assume, right or wrong, that new spells were playtested by the core four, so they're less likely to have problems when meshing with class abilities.

I can always say no. ;-) (admittedly more of an issue for PFS than my tabletop, but Josh has been pretty good about saying 'no' so far)

[Evil Genius Prime]

What you're asking for is ridiculous! I honestly don't mind the way things are and I hope they stay that way. Not all of us own every product that Paizo has put out. Therefore, we don't need the spell lists to be engorged with spells that aren't in the product we're reading at the moment, unless they are from the Core to have complete spell lists for a new class.

I'd much rather Paizo not add a metric crapload of spells to spell lists that are not in the product and save precious space for new material.

If you want what you're asking for, petition for a Web Enhancment type pdf that covers it.

[Matthew Morris]

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

What you're asking for is ridiculous! I honestly don't mind the way things are and I hope they stay that way. Not all of us own every product that Paizo has put out. Therefore, we don't need the spell lists to be engorged with spells that aren't in the product we're reading at the moment, unless they are from the Core to have complete spell lists for a new class.

I'd much rather Paizo not add a metric crapload of spells to spell lists that are not in the product and save precious space for new material.

If you want what you're asking for, petition for a Web Enhancment type pdf that covers it.

It's not ridiculous, in fact other companies* have experimented with this. Some people appriciated it, others thought of it as filler. Personally, I'd love to see a web enhancement, but understand that it is extra work for (little to) no financial reward.

*

Spoiler:

I'm thinking of the (in)complete psionic.

[james maissen]

Snorter wrote:

Plus, there's other issues at stake, even with the Core spells.

The Summoner list jumps from Summon Monster II, at level 2, to Summon Monster IV, at level 3.
A pedantic reading of this list would forbid a Summoner from using a scroll of Summon Monster 3,

I believe the final version addressed this in the SLA giving the summoner spell completion on these spells.

But it is an issue in general, and in this case needed to be directly placed into the writeup of the SLA.

It would be great if Paizo could find the energy and manpower to fully integrate all that they do with itself. I do have a great deal of faith in Paizo, but without an outcry for this to be done I am not sure that it will be a reasonable use of their time to do so.

Understanding that their player-base will see this as reaffirming other purchases I think might go a long way for them to accept that this is a very good expenditure of their efforts.

Honestly I think if I were them I would have a free downloadable 'catch up' spell list for each of the new fixed spell list classes. It would list the Paizo new spells from prior sources that would be on each list together with the Paizo product that it could be found in.

If nothing else it would reward those that already have all that material and make them feel like Paizo is committed to delivering a well-rounded complete game rather than an ongoing subscription of add-ons. It would also foster more demand for these older sources, and later the desire for a book that incorporates them all into one location. (Though in the later case I suspect that they would do a much finer job than the horrible cut&paste that was done by WotC to create the 'spell compendium').

-James

[Evil Genius Prime]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

What you're asking for is ridiculous! I honestly don't mind the way things are and I hope they stay that way. Not all of us own every product that Paizo has put out. Therefore, we don't need the spell lists to be engorged with spells that aren't in the product we're reading at the moment, unless they are from the Core to have complete spell lists for a new class.

I'd much rather Paizo not add a metric crapload of spells to spell lists that are not in the product and save precious space for new material.

If you want what you're asking for, petition for a Web Enhancment type pdf that covers it.

It's not ridiculous, in fact other companies* have experimented with this. Some people appriciated it, others thought of it as filler. Personally, I'd love to see a web enhancement, but understand that it is extra work for (little to) no financial reward.

*
** spoiler omitted **

I see your point, and ridiculous was a strong word. I just don't want to see other/new content lack in quality because they had to squeeze in larger spell lists showing spells that aren't even in the product. (Barring Core Spells of course, in the case with new classes). Of course, Ultimate Magic will probably address this issue to some degree. I just suppose I'm a little more patient than others when it comes to this.

[james maissen]

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

I see your point, and ridiculous was a strong word. I just don't want to see other/new content lack in quality because they had to squeeze in larger spell lists showing spells that aren't even in the product. (Barring Core Spells of course, in the case with new classes). Of course, Ultimate Magic will probably address this issue to some degree. I just suppose I'm a little more patient than others when it comes to this.

I'm not sure that anyone feels that the prior Paizo material outside of the core needed to be IN the APG for the spell lists, but that such expanded spell lists needed to be supported by Paizo.

The easiest way would be a free download that would give each APG spell list of non-core Paizo spells with reference to the Paizo product that featured it.

That way if you are already using Paizo product X it is fully incorporated into your game when you add the APG to your game. You don't need to do all that extra work to fit the APG in and worry if something is not balanced or inappropriate, etc.

Eventually a reprinting of those non-core spells could comprise a book. As Paizo's quality commitment is much higher than WotC's was I'm sure that it would be a much better job than the corresponding 3.5 spell compendium proved to be.

-James

[Darkholme]

LazarX wrote:

In my campaign a player can't expect to come to my game with Brand X book of divine and arcane spells and expect instant availablility of the whole shebang simply because he's one of the general casters of the appropriate type. I'm very cautious on adding new material especially in the spells department.

That's great for you. I prefer to assume everything from paizo is accessible in Paizo's game, and then remove things from play on a case by case basis. I won't let them take spells without telling me, but if they tell me "I want to take X from this book" in mid leveling, or if they say: "I'm preparing X divine spell when I rest from this book", then I'm inclined to allow it unless the spell turns out to be overpowered.

LazarX wrote:

If you have more than the two requisite brain cells you need to DM a game then you're perfectly capable of judging the addition to a class of a restricted spell list as opposed to a general one.

Implied insult is still an insult.

LazarX wrote:

Keep in mind though that those spell lists are restricted with GOOD reason. The restricted spellcasters get other benefits for the tradeoffs they made in selecting that class. A Summoner should NOT get as many spells available to their spell levels as a Conjurer Wizard, or even a conjuration heavy sorcerer.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that the entirety of their spell lists should be limited to a single source, when the ones in the PFRPG core book have an exponentially expanding list of options as new books come out.

LazarX wrote:

1. Pathfinder Society Play... an obvious no because network play depends on homogenity of player choices as well as control of what's available to the players so the game can be reasonably managed by the Paizo Decembervirate.

I don't see why this would be a problem. If options from "Gnomes of Golarion" are good for a wizard, why can't there be an official statement saying: "These can be used by a witch as well" for the ones that make a good fit for the witch?

LazarX wrote:

I have a feeling that most of the thrust for these threads are coming from players that want to walk up to their GMs and say "Here... these are spells I'd like to have for my character... GIMME." We don't need Paizo to give us a book titled . "How To Use Common Sense to Adjust Your Game." Although the Gamemastery Guide does provide a lot of help in that area.

My post is almost entirely from the viewpoint of a GM. I'm the only one in the area who runs PFS Games, and the area I live in doesn't have that many GMs in general. Usually I'm running the game. Reducing my workload is not a bad thing. It stops me from having to go through all the books myself and then pick and choose what to do this with before I start up a game. As a GM who thinks options and choices are important, and who doesn't want to see the same fighter rogue cleric and wizard every new campaign, I'd rather have the game design done for me for things that I buy, instead of having to do alot of it myself.

LazarX wrote:

2. Home play. The game does not need a rule which mandates GM's how to include other magic in their games. There is no need to write specific rules and rules specifically generic when they would be so simple that noe that writing them down would be a waste of paper. It's simple... you're the GM, if you feel that the spell is a good addition that won't unbalance your game than it's your decision to allow it. and how you choose to allow it.

I can also write new spells to give classes, or design new classes entirely! But wait... If I'm doing that why would I buy paizo's books...?

Clearly I'm hoping that paizo's stuff will be designed to work well together and want to use the options they have published. And if I'm going to want to buy their stuff and want to be able to use it, and let my players use it, shouldn't I want that stuff to see official support?

james maissen wrote:

1. When new spells come out from now on, having these new base casting classes considered for being listed on those spells. This is just not dropping a new base class and then forgetting about it. I have enough faith in Paizo that I believe that they are not going to do this. Though I hope that they are diligent enough to make sure that this is fully considered for each new spell that they bring in from now on.

Agreed. Paizo is not WOTC, and they treat their customers much better than WotC does/ever has.

james maissen wrote:

2. When new classes come out, it would be nice if they would look at all the spells in the Pathfinder milieu rather than just the 'core' material. Now this need not be enumerated in the APG, but rather a supplement would suffice. This is a good deal of work, but it keeps the game whole and is worthwhile.

Relegating this to DMs is not good form as I said, the entirety could be relegated to DMs to make new classes and the like. The point of supplemental material is to aid DMs, and an all-inclusive aid is much better than one that is part-way done.

Precisely. Good Points.

LazarX wrote:

But then again this is a lesser problem for Summoners and Inquisitors as they have a FIXED number of spells they can learn. You're not going to be remaking the character every time Joe Blow posts a new spell he created on the forums after all.

Obviously players aren't going to get to remake their character just because a new spell was published, but if it's put out by Paizo, there will be people who want to learn them when they level up, or prepare them from the exhaustive cleric list when they rest.

archmagi1 wrote:

one could always find a spell in another source that fits their character's theme, speak with their GM, and undertake a quest to find a reclusive witch known to cast this spell, or speak with an outsider to gain the power over this conjuration or somesuch. generally if its not in the PRPG book, most GM's will consider them to be rarer, but who knows, if you ask, your GM may say 'sure, that can be one of the spells you learn when you level up.'

I'm not looking for a "Guide to adding spells to spell lists". I just want support for past and future products to include all the spell casting classes, not just the ones in the PRPG Core book.

Additionally, a comprehensive spell list for each class that includes all the books would make me more likely to buy books I may not have otherwise, as it'll tell me what options for my characters I may like from that book, even if I don't have a use for the fluff from that book at the time.

Comprehensive lists of everything would be useful, but Archives of Nethys serves my needs for Traits, Feats, and whatnot pretty well as is. Having paizo do it from an official standpoint would be a good idea, and doing it with the books they have out now is a hell of alot easier from starting everything up 5 years from now.

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

What you're asking for is ridiculous! I honestly don't mind the way things are and I hope they stay that way. Not all of us own every product that Paizo has put out. Therefore, we don't need the spell lists to be engorged with spells that aren't in the product we're reading at the moment, unless they are from the Core to have complete spell lists for a new class.

If they list the source of the spell, say with [C:EoD] standing for Cheliax: Empire of Devils next to the spell in the list, you can easily say:

"Since we don't have that book, I'm not going to let you use those spells."(obviously), or
"I'm only going to allow spells from the Core book and the APG"
and if your players don't like it, they can leave.

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

I'd much rather Paizo not add a metric crapload of spells to spell lists that are not in the product and save precious space for new material.

If you want what you're asking for, petition for a Web Enhancment type pdf that covers it.

That would be perfectly reasonable. If you had read my entire post, you would have noticed that I said I'm okay with them not being in the APG so long as they receive the kind of support I was talking about. A web enhancement would be Ideal. Like the downloadable web errata, but just detailing the spells available to each class from every (paizo) source in a single list. Also, if they change a spell and reprint it differently in a future source, they could say: Cross out [C:EoD] and only list the source with the official wording of the spell.

james maissen wrote:

It would be great if Paizo could find the energy and manpower to fully integrate all that they do with itself. I do have a great deal of faith in Paizo, but without an outcry for this to be done I am not sure that it will be a reasonable use of their time to do so.

Understanding that their player-base will see this as reaffirming other purchases I think might go a long way for them to accept that this is a very good expenditure of their efforts.

Honestly I think if I were them I would have a free downloadable 'catch up' spell list for each of the new fixed spell list classes. It would list the Paizo new spells from prior sources that would be on each list together with the Paizo product that it could be found in.

If nothing else it would reward those that already have all that material and make them feel like Paizo is committed to delivering a well-rounded complete game rather than an ongoing subscription of add-ons. It would also foster more demand for these older sources, and later the desire for a book that incorporates them all into one location. (Though in the later case I suspect that they would do a much finer job than the horrible cut&paste that was done by WotC to create the 'spell compendium').-James

This. Precisely. Thank you James, this is exactly what I was trying to communicate.

I'd take the online list a step further, however, and say that maintaining a complete expansive pathfinder spell list for each caster class, from each paizo source, would be well worth doing.

It lets the players and GMs know what sorts of material have been published for what classes, gives GMs a concise list of anything a player is likely to want to try from other books in advance, saves people from having to look through all their books to remember which one that specific spell was in, all while advertising other Products Paizo has put out.

It also lets players know what options are available for PFS Play, before they go get the book, and could help motivate them to do so in many cases.

I'm not suggesting that the individual books shouldn't have spell lists of what is in that book, so that the GM who says "only spells from the core book" has a concise list -

-But as a GM who wants to support and use Paizo's products I'd like the full list for my players, and if I'm put in a room with the GM who says core only, I almost always choose to go play something else instead of whatever they want to run.

Not because I want to break their game, but because it's a warning sign that many other things in their GM style will likely ruin the gaming experience with them and I won't have fun gaming with them.

Snorter wrote:

I do get exasperated by players declaring they are casting non-Core divine spells in mid-session, as a fait accompli

This would annoy the hell out of me too, but not because it's not core, it would annoy me for any spell I'm not familiar with (most people are familiar with core).

You could deal with this by saying that The player has to tell you what spells he prepares when he sleeps. If he didn't tell you, then it's assumed he has the exact same spells he had the day before.

That way, if you object to the spell, you know when he's preparing it, not when he goes to cast it. If you think the spell will ruin your game, take it out. If you just don't like players casting spells you're unfamiliar with, have them bring you the spell text.

With my players, when I'm GMing, I expect the players to have print outs of their spells so they can look them up without spending 10 minutes flipping through the book to decide what spell they cast on their turn. Anyone with a summon or polymorph effect needs to have the summon statted out, and doesn't get to flip through the bestiary to decide what monster they want to summon. they either know what to cast on their turn or they don't. This is more because I was fed up with how slow things got than because of disallowing sources, but it still would help.

[LazarX]

Snorter wrote:

[

The Summoner list jumps from Summon Monster II, at level 2, to Summon Monster IV, at level 3.
A pedantic reading of this list would forbid a Summoner from using a scroll of Summon Monster 3, even if he were level 7+, and even if he actually knew Summon Monster IV as one of his choices.
In other words, he does know how to summon every potential creature on that scroll; he can even summon multiples of every one of those creatures.
But according to RAW, he can't use that scroll, to summon a single example of those creatures, even though he can use a scroll of Summon...

Actually according to RAW he can because the class text on the SLA specifically states that the SM spells granted access to by the SLA count as spells on the Sumnoner's spell list for these purposes. including wand, staff, or scroll use.

[Evil Genius Prime]

james maissen wrote:

Eventually a reprinting of those non-core spells could comprise a book. As Paizo's quality commitment is much higher than WotC's was I'm sure that it would be a much better job than the corresponding 3.5 spell compendium proved to be.

-James

This I agree with whole-heartedly. Paizo's quality far exceeds WotC. Hopefully it will continue to do so. I have faith that it will.