New FAQ: New Spells Known


Rules Questions

301 to 337 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:

Fighters don't have spells known or spells prepared so they can't add any such spells via the ioun stone.

The stone simply adds a cantrip or orison. It tells me what I can do, and now this FAQ is saying that I can't in fact, do what the item says.

And wizards don't have the Orison class feature and clerics don't have the Cantrip class feature.

But they do have Spell Know/Prepared and the item says to add either an orison or cantrip to their Spells Know/Prepared.

Sans-ruling, the item allows one to add a orison if they have cantrips or add cantrips if they have orisons.


Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:

Fighters don't have spells known or spells prepared so they can't add any such spells via the ioun stone.

The stone simply adds a cantrip or orison. It tells me what I can do, and now this FAQ is saying that I can't in fact, do what the item says.

And wizards don't have the Orison class feature and clerics don't have the Cantrip class feature.

But they do have Spell Know/Prepared and the item says to add either an orison or cantrip to their Spells Know/Prepared.

Sans-ruling, the item allows one to add a orison if they have cantrips or add cantrips if they have orisons.

You can read it however you want.

Seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me that if you have the ability to cast cantrips, but not orisons, adding an orison to your spell book doesn't do a damn thing.

It's a loosely written rule.


thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:

Fighters don't have spells known or spells prepared so they can't add any such spells via the ioun stone.

The stone simply adds a cantrip or orison. It tells me what I can do, and now this FAQ is saying that I can't in fact, do what the item says.

And wizards don't have the Orison class feature and clerics don't have the Cantrip class feature.

But they do have Spell Know/Prepared and the item says to add either an orison or cantrip to their Spells Know/Prepared.

Sans-ruling, the item allows one to add a orison if they have cantrips or add cantrips if they have orisons.

You can read it however you want.

Seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me that if you have the ability to cast cantrips, but not orisons, adding an orison to your spell book doesn't do a damn thing.

It's a loosely written rule.

Except it's an even more reasonable interpretation to allow them to add such spells.

If it were to add a cantrip or orison to your already existing cantrips/orisons then it would need to read as something like the following: "You increase your spells known or spell slots for cantrips or orisons by one."

The printed text says to add something to an already existing subject. That object being added is, '1 cantrip or orison'. The printed text does not limit it to only your class spell list, but any cantrip or any orison is added to your spells known or prepared.

This lets Clerics cast prestidigitation and Wizards cast create water.


Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:

Fighters don't have spells known or spells prepared so they can't add any such spells via the ioun stone.

The stone simply adds a cantrip or orison. It tells me what I can do, and now this FAQ is saying that I can't in fact, do what the item says.

And wizards don't have the Orison class feature and clerics don't have the Cantrip class feature.

But they do have Spell Know/Prepared and the item says to add either an orison or cantrip to their Spells Know/Prepared.

Sans-ruling, the item allows one to add a orison if they have cantrips or add cantrips if they have orisons.

You can read it however you want.

Seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me that if you have the ability to cast cantrips, but not orisons, adding an orison to your spell book doesn't do a damn thing.

It's a loosely written rule.

Except it's an even more reasonable interpretation to allow them to add such spells.

If it were to add a cantrip or orison to your already existing cantrips/orisons then it would need to read as something like the following: "You increase your spells known or spell slots for cantrips or orisons by one."

The printed text says to add something to an already existing subject. That object being added is, '1 cantrip or orison'. The printed text does not limit it to only your class spell list, but any cantrip or any orison is added to your spells known or prepared.

This lets Clerics cast prestidigitation and Wizards cast create water.

Sure, the text doesn't limit it to your class list, but this FAQ clears that up with what the rules are intended to be.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tels wrote:

Fighters don't have spells known or spells prepared so they can't add any such spells via the ioun stone.

The stone simply adds a cantrip or orison. It tells me what I can do, and now this FAQ is saying that I can't in fact, do what the item says.

And wizards don't have the Orison class feature and clerics don't have the Cantrip class feature.

But they do have Spell Know/Prepared and the item says to add either an orison or cantrip to their Spells Know/Prepared.

Sans-ruling, the item allows one to add a orison if they have cantrips or add cantrips if they have orisons.

You can read it however you want.

Seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me that if you have the ability to cast cantrips, but not orisons, adding an orison to your spell book doesn't do a damn thing.

It's a loosely written rule.

Except it's an even more reasonable interpretation to allow them to add such spells.

If it were to add a cantrip or orison to your already existing cantrips/orisons then it would need to read as something like the following: "You increase your spells known or spell slots for cantrips or orisons by one."

The printed text says to add something to an already existing subject. That object being added is, '1 cantrip or orison'. The printed text does not limit it to only your class spell list, but any cantrip or any orison is added to your spells known or prepared.

This lets Clerics cast prestidigitation and Wizards cast create water.

Sure, the text doesn't limit it to your class list, but this FAQ clears that up with what the rules are intended to be.

Indeed. But this is a discussion about what the item did before the ruling. I claim that the item clearly allows grabbing spells from another list, others disagree.

Dark Archive

Azten wrote:

Paragon Surge Abuse

  • Took two feats
  • A specific race(or human with a Feat)
  • A third level slot cast before the spells
  • Only worked with sorcerer/wizard spells
  • Came into play at level 11.

Spell Sage

  • Wizard only
  • Starts at level 2
  • Has longer casting times
  • Can be any spell from three other class lists

Okay, I no longer care about this FAQ. I no longer have an issue with it. I'll just play a Spell Sage if I want to 'abuse' the rules as this FAQ tries to prevent. Until they create a FAQ that says "Spell Sage does not add bard, cleric, and druid spells to their spell list, but may cast them if they are obtained in other ways." cause really... why not? As you point out a spell sage is WAY BETTER than the Paragon Surge Abuse.


Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Azten wrote:

Paragon Surge Abuse

  • Took two feats
  • A specific race(or human with a Feat)
  • A third level slot cast before the spells
  • Only worked with sorcerer/wizard spells
  • Came into play at level 11.

Spell Sage

  • Wizard only
  • Starts at level 2
  • Has longer casting times
  • Can be any spell from three other class lists
Okay, I no longer care about this FAQ. I no longer have an issue with it. I'll just play a Spell Sage if I want to 'abuse' the rules as this FAQ tries to prevent. Until they create a FAQ that says "Spell Sage does not add bard, cleric, and druid spells to their spell list, but may cast them if they are obtained in other ways." cause really... why not? As you point out a spell sage is WAY BETTER than the Paragon Surge Abuse.

And that's the point of the FAQ.

They want such abilities to be designed and handed out explicitly, not hacked into by nabbing abilities designed to let one class cast more of it's own spells.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

And that's the point of the FAQ.

They want such abilities to be designed and handed out explicitly, not hacked into by nabbing abilities designed to let one class cast more of it's own spells.

But then you still have the feats that HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER AND YOU WOULD BE SCREWING YOURSELF OVER IF YOU TOOK THEM that are created with this FAQ.

Like Dreamed Secrets...

Dreamed Secrets from Inner Sea Gods wrote:
With each night's rest, you can choose two spells from the wizard spell list, both of which must be at least 1 wizard spell level lower than the highest level divine spell you can cast. If you are a spontaneous caster, these spells are added to your spells known for 24 hours. If you prepare spells, you can prepare these spells any time you do so in the next 24 hours. Each time you attempt to cast one of the wizard spells you have chosen, you must succeed at a DC 20 Will save or take 1d2 points of Wisdom damage and fail to cast the spell, though you do not lose the spell.

Relevant parts are noted. So, this allows you to gain wizard spells, but unless they are already on the cleric spell list (or druid if you are a druid) then you can't actually cast them. So, now I am able to prepare a spell I can already prepare. Whoop de doo. But wait, I am a worshipper of the Old Gods so I really want to use this feat because it fits my concept... SO I will take this feat... and I will find the one or two spells that match up on the lists... and I will cast them! With this feat! ACK I just took 1d2 points of Wisdom damage hahahaa But it fits my concept!! Right? No, this is a Paizo published feat that they have completely broken with this FAQ, and because it's not in a core book it will NEVER see an errata to add "and your spell list" to the rules. Sure, I as a GM can do that, but I cannot expect other GMs to do so, even if they are allowing worship of the Old Gods.

And that is why my joke aside, Yes I do still have issue with this FAQ... but if I ever did play in PFS I'd play a Spell Sage if I wanted to go outside the spell lists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And that's the point of the FAQ.

They want such abilities to be designed and handed out explicitly, not hacked into by nabbing abilities designed to let one class cast more of it's own spells.

But then you still have the feats that HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER AND YOU WOULD BE SCREWING YOURSELF OVER IF YOU TOOK THEM that are created with this FAQ.

Like Dreamed Secrets...

Dreamed Secrets from Inner Sea Gods wrote:
With each night's rest, you can choose two spells from the wizard spell list, both of which must be at least 1 wizard spell level lower than the highest level divine spell you can cast. If you are a spontaneous caster, these spells are added to your spells known for 24 hours. If you prepare spells, you can prepare these spells any time you do so in the next 24 hours. Each time you attempt to cast one of the wizard spells you have chosen, you must succeed at a DC 20 Will save or take 1d2 points of Wisdom damage and fail to cast the spell, though you do not lose the spell.

Relevant parts are noted. So, this allows you to gain wizard spells, but unless they are already on the cleric spell list (or druid if you are a druid) then you can't actually cast them. So, now I am able to prepare a spell I can already prepare. Whoop de doo. But wait, I am a worshipper of the Old Gods so I really want to use this feat because it fits my concept... SO I will take this feat... and I will find the one or two spells that match up on the lists... and I will cast them! With this feat! ACK I just took 1d2 points of Wisdom damage hahahaa But it fits my concept!! Right? No, this is a Paizo published feat that they have completely broken with this FAQ, and because it's not in a core book it will NEVER see an errata to add "and your spell list" to the rules. Sure, I as a GM can do that, but I cannot expect other GMs to do so, even if they are allowing worship of the Old Gods.

And that is why my joke aside, Yes I do still have issue...

The issue with the faq is that it's badly written and probably necessarily so. They don't have a good clean way to distinguish. They really need to find a better way to phrase the FAQ to allow those abilities actually designed to give you spells from another classes list to work.


You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.

I'm missing it.

I get Unsanctioned Knowledge. That works because it specifically says " Add these spells to your paladin spell list."

Dreamed Secrets does not and thus doesn't work, though a spontaneous caster can use it to access spells on their list that they haven't chosen. It was brought up as an example earlier in the thread, but wasn't resolved as far as I could see.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Tels wrote:
I claim that the item clearly allows grabbing spells from another list, others disagree.

But since the item RAW didn't make clear which, you can't be certain what the RAW is for sure since all RAW is interpreted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?
The actual text says

Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! No where does weapon focus say it applies when attacking a creature not of your type. It says you can get a +1 bonus when attacking a creature, but it doesn't say you can get a +1 bonus when attacking ANY creature. So you can't tell what the RAW is. To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

Grand Lodge

137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.


kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

No where does weapon focus say it applies when attacking a creature not of your type. It says you can get a +1 bonus when attacking a creature, but it doesn't say you can get a +1 bonus when attacking ANY creature. So obviously it only applies against humanoids.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.

I'm missing it.

I get Unsanctioned Knowledge. That works because it specifically says " Add these spells to your paladin spell list."

Dreamed Secrets does not and thus doesn't work, though a spontaneous caster can use it to access spells on their list that they haven't chosen. It was brought up as an example earlier in the thread, but wasn't resolved as far as I could see.

Right, it was brought up and Mark basically said "Yeah, that feat is broken and there's no easy fix for it... make up a list of all the feats that get broken and we'll see what we can do." and a player said he was going to, and then the thread died, so I resurrected it to ask what ever happened to that list. Did Mark ever get it? Is he making progress? Is he ignoring the list? This is the things I myself want to know, as the person who resurrected this thread.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.

I'm missing it.

I get Unsanctioned Knowledge. That works because it specifically says " Add these spells to your paladin spell list."

Dreamed Secrets does not and thus doesn't work, though a spontaneous caster can use it to access spells on their list that they haven't chosen. It was brought up as an example earlier in the thread, but wasn't resolved as far as I could see.

Right, it was brought up and Mark basically said "Yeah, that feat is broken and there's no easy fix for it... make up a list of all the feats that get broken and we'll see what we can do." and a player said he was going to, and then the thread died, so I resurrected it to ask what ever happened to that list. Did Mark ever get it? Is he making progress? Is he ignoring the list? This is the things I myself want to know, as the person who resurrected this thread.

I didn't get that list. My team can't normally get involved with FAQs and such for the book line it's in, but right now, I think it's just Dreamed Secrets. Fortunately, since Dreamed Secrets is not PFS legal, that lessens the need to have a super official ruling on it, so in a home game, you could just houserule it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.

Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.

Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.

And, if you did that in my games, even before this FAQ, it wouldn't have worked, because it doesn't make any sense.

If it worked in your home games, you can still rule that it works, no matter how nonsensical it seems to other people.

But, RAW, it never said you could cast the spell if it wasn't on your spell list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.

I'm missing it.

I get Unsanctioned Knowledge. That works because it specifically says " Add these spells to your paladin spell list."

Dreamed Secrets does not and thus doesn't work, though a spontaneous caster can use it to access spells on their list that they haven't chosen. It was brought up as an example earlier in the thread, but wasn't resolved as far as I could see.

Right, it was brought up and Mark basically said "Yeah, that feat is broken and there's no easy fix for it... make up a list of all the feats that get broken and we'll see what we can do." and a player said he was going to, and then the thread died, so I resurrected it to ask what ever happened to that list. Did Mark ever get it? Is he making progress? Is he ignoring the list? This is the things I myself want to know, as the person who resurrected this thread.
I didn't get that list. My team can't normally get involved with FAQs and such for the book line it's in, but right now, I think it's just Dreamed Secrets. Fortunately, since Dreamed Secrets is not PFS legal, that lessens the need to have a super official ruling on it, so in a home game, you could just houserule it.

It does not make me super happy that that sounds like things that effect PFS get precedence over other questions. PFS isn't the only game that tries to follow the rules. I play a lot of online games and they are usually based on the rules with a minimum of houserules. That's not to say I think THIS issue needs a rush FAQ or anything, I'd just rather not have it's PFS legality have anything to do with it's eligibility for an FAQ.


Makes rather clear that the things that get FAQed are things that involve PFS.

Disappointing, though not surprising, to effectively be told that PFS determines what needs to be FAQed and how.

Grand Lodge

Legowaffles wrote:

Makes rather clear that the things that get FAQed are things that involve PFS.

Disappointing, though not surprising, to effectively be told that PFS determines what needs to be FAQed and how.

That is not what Mark said.

Mark is the Designer concerned & working on PFS.

I am fairly confident that Mark is not the only Designer at Paizo.

So, for Mark, because that is his job, PFS takes precedence.

For the other Designer(s), their priorities will be different, based on their job responsibilities.

Dark Archive

Mark Seifter wrote:


I didn't get that list. My team can't normally get involved with FAQs and such for the book line it's in, but right now, I think it's just Dreamed Secrets. Fortunately, since Dreamed Secrets is not PFS legal, that lessens the need to have a super official ruling on it, so in a home game, you could just houserule it.

Thanks for the reply, and I know it can be house ruled but that's the problem I have with the whole FAQ system... It not being in a core book and not being PFS legal anyway really presents a problem for GM/Players that don't like a lot of house rules.

It's a different issue, but related somewhat in that half the time when I ask a question on these forums it's so hard to get an answer other than "Ask your GM" or "You're the GM, house rule it" which, really why am I even here then?

Plus then there's the issue I have with how a recent FAQ has been rewritten to say something completely different than it originally did simply because some players were abusing the old rule in PFS (at least I figure that's probably the reason) because the RAI doesn't (or shouldn't) change on a whim.

I understand nerfing Paragon Surge, I don't understand this nerf especially when it was never even an issue until Paragon Surge allowed the crazy OP shenanigans. Paragon Surge should be banned in PFS, not nerf half the game into oblivion to fix it.

This is also why I don't PLAY Pathfinder. I GM, because things like this change so often that I am afraid I would end up with a GM that allowed me to worship the old gods and then I take Dreamed Secrets and then am told "Oh as per the latest FAQ that feat no longer works." Can I retrain it? "No, I don't use the retraining rules, you know that." Granted, that's an extreme example, but it could happen (as I've seen from players/GMs on these forums)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Last I heard, Mark was the one primarily (and pretty much only one) working to get more FAQs answered for us.

Hence, my response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Tels wrote:
kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.

Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.

And, if you did that in my games, even before this FAQ, it wouldn't have worked, because it doesn't make any sense.

If it worked in your home games, you can still rule that it works, no matter how nonsensical it seems to other people.

But, RAW, it never said you could cast the spell if it wasn't...

The RAW is quite clear, it allows the spell access. The FAQratta changing the rules doesn't change the RAW. It just changes the rules as to how it's being applied.

I mean, here, look at this one. This is what the Bestiary 2 has to say on the Natural Invisibility ability.

Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su)

This ability is constant—the creature remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell.

Format: natural invisibility; Location: Defensive Abilities.

This is what the FAQ has to say on Natural Invisibility.

FAQ wrote:

Invisibility Purge: Does this work on creatures that are naturally invisible?

In general, yes--nothing in the spell description says it only works on spells or other magical sources of invisibility.
However, note that the invisible stalker's natural invisibility specifically says that it is not subject to invisibility purge. Thus, will-o'-wisps and pixies become visible, but invisible stalkers do not.

Invisible Stalker has Natural Invisibility (Ex)

Will-o'-wisps have Natural Invisibility (Ex)
Pixies have Invisibility (Su)

The RAW is undeniably clear and straight up tells you that Invisibility Purge doesn't work on Natural Invisibility. The FAQ tells you that Invisibility Purge does work on Natural Invisibility.

It's worth noting that Bestiary 2 came out in 2010, while the FAQ on Natural Invisibility came out in 2011.


kinevon wrote:
Legowaffles wrote:

Makes rather clear that the things that get FAQed are things that involve PFS.

Disappointing, though not surprising, to effectively be told that PFS determines what needs to be FAQed and how.

That is not what Mark said.

Mark is the Designer concerned & working on PFS.

I am fairly confident that Mark is not the only Designer at Paizo.

So, for Mark, because that is his job, PFS takes precedence.

For the other Designer(s), their priorities will be different, based on their job responsibilities.

There is a Mark that works on PFS and a Mark that is a Designer. The two are not the same people. Don't confuse them.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.

I'm missing it.

I get Unsanctioned Knowledge. That works because it specifically says " Add these spells to your paladin spell list."

Dreamed Secrets does not and thus doesn't work, though a spontaneous caster can use it to access spells on their list that they haven't chosen. It was brought up as an example earlier in the thread, but wasn't resolved as far as I could see.

Right, it was brought up and Mark basically said "Yeah, that feat is broken and there's no easy fix for it... make up a list of all the feats that get broken and we'll see what we can do." and a player said he was going to, and then the thread died, so I resurrected it to ask what ever happened to that list. Did Mark ever get it? Is he making progress? Is he ignoring the list? This is the things I myself want to know, as the person who resurrected this thread.
I didn't get that list. My team can't normally get involved with FAQs and such for the book line it's in, but right now, I think it's just Dreamed Secrets. Fortunately, since Dreamed Secrets is not PFS legal, that lessens the need to have a super official ruling on it, so in a home game, you could just houserule it.
It does not make me super happy that that sounds like things that effect PFS get precedence over other questions. PFS isn't the only game that tries to follow the rules. I play a lot of online games and they are usually based on the rules with a minimum of houserules. That's not to say I think THIS issue needs a rush FAQ or anything, I'd just rather not have it's PFS legality have anything to do with it's eligibility for an FAQ.

That is not, in fact, how FAQs work. The way they work is that the PDT can only FAQ things from the core line, and Dreamed Secrets isn't, and we discuss things mainly out of a queue of FAQ requests that has nothing to do with PFS (Dreamed Secrets wouldn't get a FAQ whether or not it was legal for PFS due to not being Pathfinder RPG line). The FAQ queue doesn't have an option to determine whether people are asking about it for PFS even if we wanted to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


I didn't get that list. My team can't normally get involved with FAQs and such for the book line it's in, but right now, I think it's just Dreamed Secrets. Fortunately, since Dreamed Secrets is not PFS legal, that lessens the need to have a super official ruling on it, so in a home game, you could just houserule it.

Thanks for the reply, and I know it can be house ruled but that's the problem I have with the whole FAQ system... It not being in a core book and not being PFS legal anyway really presents a problem for GM/Players that don't like a lot of house rules.

It's a different issue, but related somewhat in that half the time when I ask a question on these forums it's so hard to get an answer other than "Ask your GM" or "You're the GM, house rule it" which, really why am I even here then?

Plus then there's the issue I have with how a recent FAQ has been rewritten to say something completely different than it originally did simply because some players were abusing the old rule in PFS (at least I figure that's probably the reason) because the RAI doesn't (or shouldn't) change on a whim.

I understand nerfing Paragon Surge, I don't understand this nerf especially when it was never even an issue until Paragon Surge allowed the crazy OP shenanigans. Paragon Surge should be banned in PFS, not nerf half the game into oblivion to fix it.

This is also why I don't PLAY Pathfinder. I GM, because things like this change so often that I am afraid I would end up with a GM that allowed me to worship the old gods and then I take Dreamed Secrets and then am told "Oh as per the latest FAQ that feat no longer works." Can I retrain it? "No, I don't use the retraining rules, you know that." Granted, that's an extreme example, but it could happen (as I've seen from players/GMs on these forums)

The bolded, that's the main reason behind my previous comment. As far as I've seen across several forums, there has been absolutely no justification for that rule rewrite.

That basically means to me, that it was rewritten based on something happening in PFS, despite PFS having their own PFS specific FAQ (or so I've heard).

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Legowaffles wrote:

Makes rather clear that the things that get FAQed are things that involve PFS.

Disappointing, though not surprising, to effectively be told that PFS determines what needs to be FAQed and how.

That is not what Mark said.

Mark is the Designer concerned & working on PFS.

I am fairly confident that Mark is not the only Designer at Paizo.

So, for Mark, because that is his job, PFS takes precedence.

For the other Designer(s), their priorities will be different, based on their job responsibilities.

I sit in on PFS meetings as a liaison from the Design Team, but I'm actually part of a different team, so this is not exactly the case. You're correct that it has something to do with the structure of the company, just not in the exact details. The PDT answers everyone's questions on the Pathfinder RPG line, whether it's something legal or PFS or not. If a lot of people want to know and we can figure out a solid answer, we have your back for those books, which we work on. But the other lines do not belong to us. We can't FAQ them, just as they can't FAQ our line.

I'll try an analogy, since sometimes it's easy to see Paizo as monolithic and at least 90% of people get designers and developers mixed up: PDT FAQing anything but the Pathfinder RPG line would be like if you worked at a software company with two ace teams of programmers, one of which worked on front end and one of which worked on back end. Since they're ace programmers, the front end team might be skilled enough to go in and make changes to the back end team's code when there's a bug that affects the front end, but it wouldn't be polite to do so.

In summary: It's what book it's from that is the factor here.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You should read the parts about Unsanctioned Knowledge earlier in the thread before you go complaining about feats whose mechanics have already been explained.

I'm missing it.

I get Unsanctioned Knowledge. That works because it specifically says " Add these spells to your paladin spell list."

Dreamed Secrets does not and thus doesn't work, though a spontaneous caster can use it to access spells on their list that they haven't chosen. It was brought up as an example earlier in the thread, but wasn't resolved as far as I could see.

Right, it was brought up and Mark basically said "Yeah, that feat is broken and there's no easy fix for it... make up a list of all the feats that get broken and we'll see what we can do." and a player said he was going to, and then the thread died, so I resurrected it to ask what ever happened to that list. Did Mark ever get it? Is he making progress? Is he ignoring the list? This is the things I myself want to know, as the person who resurrected this thread.
I didn't get that list. My team can't normally get involved with FAQs and such for the book line it's in, but right now, I think it's just Dreamed Secrets. Fortunately, since Dreamed Secrets is not PFS legal, that lessens the need to have a super official ruling on it, so in a home game, you could just houserule it.
It does not make me super happy that that sounds like things that effect PFS get precedence over other questions. PFS isn't the only game that tries to follow the rules. I play a lot of online games and they are usually based on the rules with a minimum of houserules. That's not to say I think THIS issue needs a rush FAQ or anything, I'd just rather not have it's PFS legality have anything to do with it's eligibility for an FAQ.
That is not, in fact, how FAQs work. The way they work is that the PDT can only FAQ things from the core...

I truly hope that PFS doesn't affect the FAQ process. It's just when a big issue shows up on the PFS boards and soon after a huge nerf comes along it makes you wonder. Then your other post sounded REALLY bad. I'll take your word that it isn't happening, just be aware that wording things like you did makes it sound otherwise to people that are already wondering about the reasons for the [seemingly] endless series of nerfs.

The core vs other line for FAQ's I understand. I wish we'd see more FAQ's for them but I understand that's not something you can do anything about. Your wording though made it sound like the real issue was PFS legality, not that. I'll just accept that you meant it differently than it read to me.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

I truly hope that PFS doesn't affect the FAQ process. It's just when a big issue shows up on the PFS boards and soon after a huge nerf comes along it makes you wonder. Then your other post sounded REALLY bad. I'll take your word that it isn't happening, just be aware that wording things like you did makes it sound otherwise to people that are already wondering about the reasons for the [seemingly] endless series of nerfs.

The core vs other line for FAQ's I understand. I wish we'd see more FAQ's for them but I understand that's not something you can do anything about. Your wording though made it sound like the real issue was PFS legality, not that. I'll just accept that you meant it differently than it read to me.

Let me explain it then. I trained to be an engineer before coming here a few months ago, so I'm one of those weird people who actually enjoys putting up FAQs and fixing things and feels discomfort about things we can't fix. It's part of why I push for more FAQs so much. I feel even more discomfort if this is something that other people are helpless to deal with (like PFSers are) and I am too. However, all other players and GMs are capable of (and in fact totally should!) instituting houserules and working out gray areas together, so I feel marginally better about my own powerlessness, since the affected people are themselves empowered to do something about it. That being said, if I can do something about it, then I want us to do so, PFS or not. So it is true that I feel less bad about things I can't help with if they don't affect PFS (for example, PFS players have to deal with blood money in their games, whereas every other group can choose not to allow it or to alter it, so if it wasn't PFS legal, I would feel less bad than I do), but I feel equally compelled to work hard on things I can help with, PFS or not. So both statements I made are perhaps more reconcilable, with that explained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:

I truly hope that PFS doesn't affect the FAQ process. It's just when a big issue shows up on the PFS boards and soon after a huge nerf comes along it makes you wonder. Then your other post sounded REALLY bad. I'll take your word that it isn't happening, just be aware that wording things like you did makes it sound otherwise to people that are already wondering about the reasons for the [seemingly] endless series of nerfs.

The core vs other line for FAQ's I understand. I wish we'd see more FAQ's for them but I understand that's not something you can do anything about. Your wording though made it sound like the real issue was PFS legality, not that. I'll just accept that you meant it differently than it read to me.

Let me explain it then. I trained to be an engineer before coming here a few months ago, so I'm one of those weird people who actually enjoys putting up FAQs and fixing things and feels discomfort about things we can't fix. It's part of why I push for more FAQs so much. I feel even more discomfort if this is something that other people are helpless to deal with (like PFS players are in PFS) and I am too. However, all other players and GMs are capable of (and in fact totally should!) instituting houserules and working out gray areas together, so I feel marginally better about my own powerlessness, since the affected people are themselves empowered to do something about it. That being said, if I can do something about it, then I want us to do so, PFS or not. So it is true that I feel less bad about things I can't help with if they don't affect PFS (for example, PFS players have to deal with blood money in their games, whereas every other group can choose not to allow it or to alter it, so if it wasn't PFS legal, I would feel less bad than I do), but I feel equally compelled to work hard on things I can help with, PFS or not. So both statements I made are perhaps more reconcilable, with that explained.

That sounds SO much better Mark, thanks for that. Now I can go back to complaining about the SLA FAQ reversal and not worry about this. Have a good night. :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Prepared casters can easily have any spell whenever? Wizards can easily cast any cleric spell and vice versa? (Spell research, with GM permission, isn't quite the same thing.)

By the time an oracle can? Yes - anything they'd want for an adventure or downtime.

Not by having them prepared and cast, mind - the access is different for the different casters - but for most purposes, there isn't much they could want that they didn't already have access to.

The flexibility is that they either have access to the entire spell-list already plus some that weren't on it (clerics) or could learn every spell and make scrolls for any time (wizards) and they had plenty of tricks (mostly summons, but not exclusively) to access other spells from other lists.

This is in addition to the research spells (by GM permission).

But as for this FAQ? If it was for the purpose of curbing power, it doesn't do that much to do so (simply limits which classes and choices you make to attain it) and it does so in a way that's counter-intuitive and boring.

And if it wasn't to curb power creep? It still makes the game more boring (more mechanics, less purpose) and it serves no real purpose other than to say "No, you can't do that." which, in the end, is needless. It's time and energy wasted that does nothing but shut down doors that required a lot of time and energy to open and were good for a few specific builds for no purpose.

thejeff wrote:
I don't have any problem with them wanting to make it clear that it was never intended to work like that.

I don't have a problem with it either. It just doesn't do anything like they wanted it to either way you cut it (or if it does, it's boring, confusing, and annoying).

EDIT: Also, I have an emotional response in addition to the logical one above.

This FAQ in particular feels (intentionally or not) like Devs saying, "This is our thing for us; you can't touch or play with these kinds of...

I see we have a very different opinion of the game. For me every one of the options you have listed as wonderful and sorely mis was something clearly stretched beyond the intended limits and extremely annoying.

For me removing them didn't make the game boring, it made it better.

If we give emotion replies we should realize that not all people share our opinion and that some people will feel very differently from us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

I see we have a very different opinion of the game. For me every one of the options you have listed as wonderful and sorely mis was something clearly stretched beyond the intended limits and extremely annoying.

For me removing them didn't make the game boring, it made it better.

You find a lot of things I like "annoying" Diego. I think we'd both know this by now, so it wouldn't come as a surprise. :)

It is awkward, however, that you ignored the actual legit RAW ways of accessing "not my list" magical ability that I noted. Does that bother you, then? What about spell sage? Is that annoying? Pages of Spell Knowledge? Summon Monster? Crane Wing before nerf? (What about after the nerf?) Magic item creation? Simulacrum? (Not "abuse" to gain wishes or things like that, just using simulacrum, straight-up.) Blood-money? Fabricate to make masterwork goods?

If you find those annoying, by the way, your displeasure is really misdirected if aimed toward me.

I mean, those are all legit RAW things.

(Incidentally, I quoted two posts up, because, frankly, the only thing I can find in the post you actually quoted was:

Quote:
The flexibility is that they either have access to the entire spell-list already plus some that weren't on it (clerics) or could learn every spell and make scrolls for any time (wizards) and they had plenty of tricks (mostly summons, but not exclusively) to access other spells from other lists.

... which is literally just, "Open up the Core rulebook and make a character you see there." so I can't imagine that such things would fall under,

Quote:
every one of the options you have listed as wonderful and sorely mis was something clearly stretched beyond the intended limits and extremely annoying

... sooooooooo, please let me know if I'm responding to the wrong argument, or please quote which "every single option" you found annoying, if we want to continue this coversation.)

(I'm not going to touch weapon cords, ability stacking, or this because, frankly, when the two of us post on most anything that I think is cool, it... usually doesn't go well for us.)

Diego Rossi wrote:
If we give emotion replies we should realize that not all people share our opinion and that some people will feel very differently from us.

... yes, and? I'm really struggling to see where pointing this out this is relevant? I'm sorry, I may just be missing a subtle point that you're trying to make, but that sounds exactly like the caveat I give in most of my posts?

EDIT: Like, this may just be a friendly reminder, or something, and that's cool - it's certainly true that "Different people feel different" (which is one of my defining themes). It just feels like there is something that I'm missing in it, hence my confusion.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Tacticslion wrote:
It is awkward, however, that you ignored the actual legit RAW ways of accessing "not my list" magical ability that I noted. Does that bother you, then? What about spell sage? Is that annoying? Pages of Spell Knowledge? Summon Monster? Crane Wing before nerf? (What about after the nerf?) Magic item creation? Simulacrum? (Not "abuse" to gain wishes or things like that, just using simulacrum, straight-up.) Blood-money? Fabricate to make masterwork goods?

I'm perfectly fine with all legitimate ways of accessing from other lists, I'm playing an Ancient Lorekeeper and Elven Arcana adds to spell known but not class list. It continues to work post FAQ because it is a class ability.

Spell Study is a class ability so should continue to work.
Pages of Spell Knowledge doesn't allow you to cast if it isn't on your spell list.
Summon Monster I assume you mean get a Couatl for cool SLA? Fine
Crane Wing before nerf was pretty good, but not annoying. After nerf still good.
Magic Item creation is beautiful if people follow the rules/guidelines such as no 2,000 gp continuous Cure Light Wounds items.
Simulacrum is fine and requires GM adjudication on what abilities a half HD creature has from the original. No you don't get every ability with 50% hit points.
Blood Money I hate with a passion. My Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle casts it nearly every game session and some times many times. Nearly every spell I have is an expensive material component spell.
Fabricate to make masterwork goods is entirely up to your GM's interpretation of the spell/RAW. At my game, no masterwork goods.


Tacticslion wrote:
It is awkward, however, that you ignored the actual legit RAW ways of accessing "not my list" magical ability that I noted. Does that bother you, then? What about spell sage? Is that annoying? Pages of Spell Knowledge? Summon Monster? Crane Wing before nerf? (What about after the nerf?) Magic item creation? Simulacrum? (Not "abuse" to gain wishes or things like that, just using simulacrum, straight-up.) Blood-money? Fabricate to make masterwork goods?
James Risner wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with all legitimate ways of accessing from other lists, I'm playing an Ancient Lorekeeper and Elven Arcana adds to spell known but not class list. It continues to work post FAQ because it is a class ability.

You have a different "legitimate" than I, then. Which is fine, but worth noting.

James Risner wrote:
Spell Study is a class ability so should continue to work.

... so you're okay with classes having access to non-class spells.

James Risner wrote:
Pages of Spell Knowledge doesn't allow you to cast if it isn't on your spell list.

Didn't say that. Did say that it allows you to bypass normal class restrictions (such as limited spells known).

James Risner wrote:
Summon Monster I assume you mean get a Couatl for cool SLA? Fine

Eventually, but not just the couatl. I've done other posts, and, if you want, I can dig into them, but the weekend's coming up, I'm pretty sleep deprived and really not feeling the desire to get them all up here.

James Risner wrote:
Crane Wing before nerf was pretty good, but not annoying. After nerf still good.

Cool.

James Risner wrote:
Magic Item creation is beautiful if people follow the rules/guidelines such as no 2,000 gp continuous Cure Light Wounds items.

Is that a guideline anywhere? Can you cite and link it for me?

James Risner wrote:
Simulacrum is fine and requires GM adjudication on what abilities a half HD creature has from the original. No you don't get every ability with 50% hit points.

I don't think you're thinking of what I was implying. 1/2 HD cleric. 1/2 HD anything with "appropriate abilities" is generally going to get you either the abilities as-written, a GM who doesn't follow any of the guidelines and makes exceedingly weird decisions, or a GM who tries to figure approximate values which are going to swing wildly from table to table. The closest RAW is the first.

James Risner wrote:
Blood Money I hate with a passion. My Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle casts it nearly every game session and some times many times. Nearly every spell I have is an expensive material component spell.

Fair 'nough. Don't play PFS, I guess!

James Risner wrote:
Fabricate to make masterwork goods is entirely up to your GM's interpretation of the spell/RAW. At my game, no masterwork goods.

Untrue


Mark Seifter wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:

Hm, I'm a bit confused. So a Bard (Magician) can now only use expanded repertoire to select spells already on the bard spell list? It only says you add the spell to your spells known, not your spell list.

PRD wrote:

Expanded Repertoire (Ex): At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter, a magician can add one spell to his spells known from the spell list of any arcane spellcasting class. The spell must be of a level he can cast. This ability replaces versatile performance.

This class feature is clearly designed to be an exception to this new FAQ. It still works, adding the spell to your list of spells known and spell list. It will need an FAQ to resolve that.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

It should be handled by the current FAQ, actually--since it is a class feature, it gets an exemption from the "unless they are added by a class feature of that same class."

How would this work with the shamans Arcane Enlightenment and how would it work on a spirit guide oracle would the oracle get to cast the spells despite not being a prepared spell caster because this class feature would add the spells to their spell list and they can take them as spells known?

301 to 337 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / New FAQ: New Spells Known All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.