|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As it stands now, consumable items are made by wizards, druids, and clerics:
Potions, Scrolls, and Wands
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.
. . .
For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand. Thus a bard and cleric may both use the same scroll of cure moderate wounds.
This ruling-particularly the bolded part above-has some interesting consequences concerning the following class feature of the new cavalier Order of the First Law.
Order of the First Law
Rejection of Faith (Ex): At 2nd level, the cavalier must refuse all divine magic, including helpful effects or spells. As long as he has not benefited from divine magic in the past 24 hours, he receives a +2 morale bonus on one saving throw of his choice. Each day he can change the saving throw to which this bonus applies.
There are also some complications with the following trait:
Rahadoumi Disbeliever (Regional): As a Rahadoumi who rejects covenants with gods, your belief is strong enough to repel divine spells. You gain a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against divine spells, but you must make a saving throw even when that magic is beneficial to you.
---
If the above trait and/or class feature were used in a home game, it would be simple enough for that character to make sure they always purchased their wands of cure X wounds from a witch, bard, or alchemist. However, since in PFS "there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand", how should a Rahadoumi character interact with these items? Would they be forbidden from using any consumable healing items because it is assumed that they are all made by a cleric? Or does the wand become arcane in the hands of a bard/witch/alchemist but then switch to divine in the hands of a cleric/oracle/druid?
And what about potions? The rule does not mention whether potions are arcane or divine, but this is important to a character with the above class feature and/or trait. Is the Rahadoumi character banned from ever using curing potions because they have to assume that it came from a cleric? Or can they buy "arcane" potions of cure light wounds from a witch or alchemist?
---
I think based on the above complications the ruling on arcane vs. divine scrolls/wands/potions might need to be tweaked a bit. At the very least some clarification is needed for those (albeit rare) character concepts that depend on this distinction.
For example, rather than limiting all consumable items to being made by clerics, druids, or wizards, allow items made by other classes as long as the spell level is not lower in that other class compared to the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. The would not alter the price at all but would allow someone (for RP purposes or for legitimate mechanical reasons like the abilities quoted above) to, say, purchase potions of cure light wounds from an alchemist instead of a cleric. The reworded rule might look like this:
Potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are generally made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. In addition, potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables may be made by other classes (bards, witches, alchemists, etc.) as long as the spell is of the same level as it is for clerics, druids, or wizards. . . .
Of course, there may be better ways to phrase that so I welcome suggestions on how to clarify this ruling so that it no longer nerfs some character concepts like the above Rahadoumi features.
|
|
Infernal healing is a spell that is on the sorcerer/wizard list. Perhaps that might be more useful to you?
That is one solution but it doesn't answer the question: could a Rahadoumi character of the Order of Law buy an "arcane" potion/wand of cure light wounds and in order to abide by the restrictions of his rejection of faith ability?
Besides, I dislike using infernal healing without consequence. The character I am creating would not be comfortable using it. In fact, I only have one character (a necromancer) who accepts healing from that spell; all of my other characters refuse it if offered. But that is another topic entirely and not related to the question at hand so I won't get into that here.
|
Well, you kind of answered your own question, didn't you? Except you bolded the wrong part:
Potions, Scrolls, and Wands
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.
That means that any wand/potion of a cure spell that you purchase has been made by a cleric. So while yes, a bard/witch can use a wand of CLW, it was still made by a cleric per the GtPFSOP.
|
|
Well, you kind of answered your own question, didn't you? Except you bolded the wrong part:
That means that any wand/potion of a cure spell that you purchase has been made by a cleric. So while yes, a bard/witch can use a wand of CLW, it was still made by a cleric per the GtPFSOP.Potions, Scrolls, and Wands
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.
Well, my question was whether this should be revisited based on the quoted class feature and trait. So unless there is a change in policy and you are allowed to buy potions from alchemists or witches, a character with the Rahadoumi Disbeliever trait has to make a Will save against potions they buy.
I'd like to point out that the Order of the First law was banned in the most recent update of the Additional Resources.
Wow, I had not noticed that. It was originally legal when the book came out and when I made that character. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I'm not sure why it's illegal, except maybe to avoid the above problem. That kinda sucks, I guess I have to remake that character even though he is second level already.
|
|
I think the above problem (and similar ones) were the reasons it was banned, yeah.
Yes, I'm sure that was the reasoning behind the decision, which is a little disappointing that they'd rather just ban the order outright than address the issue but I also understand that changing the rule may or may not have opened up lots of other issues that they didn't feel like messing with.
Still, even without changing the rule and forcing a cavalier of the Order of the First Law never to use potions or wands, I was willing to play such a character (already have XP on him, after all!). I don't know that a ban on the Order was necessary.
|
|
I think it might have been more because of spells like bless that they couldn't save against. Some players might have seen it similar to PVP as every time a helpful divine spell is cast they lose their abilities. It doesn't seem like that friendly of a class for organized play, especially when they'd refuse any kind of healing, quite possibly be killed early in the scenario, then everyone else is facing even tougher odds.
|
|
I think it might have been more because of spells like bless that they couldn't save against. Some players might have seen it similar to PVP as every time a helpful divine spell is cast they lose their abilities. It doesn't seem like that friendly of a class for organized play, especially when they'd refuse any kind of healing, quite possibly be killed early in the scenario, then everyone else is facing even tougher odds.
I hadn't considered how bless might affect them-I suppose you could just ask the cleric/oracle not to use bless. To clarify, they wouldn't refuse any kind of healing; as long as you have a bard, witch, or alchemist with infused cures you'd be fine. There are plenty of other builds which would be just as or even less 'friendly' for organized play that are currently legal. But that's besides the point; I'm a bit frustrated that I have to recreate that character after already putting XP on him but I'll save that concept for an AP or homegame and put something else in his place I guess. No harm done.