Individualized Spell Lists --- "What NOT to include?"

[Barachiel Shina]

I debated on putting this either in Advice or Rules Questions, but it is actually bigger than that. Something I believe should have been addressed long ago, back when the APG came out, actually.

It seems the designers refuse to give us guidelines to increasing the repertoire of spells for classes such as Bloodrager, Magus, Summoner, and Witch. What I mean is, if we're using 3PP products (such as D&D 3.5 Spell Compendium), we would like to know what kind of spells would be appropriate for the unique spell lists of those classes.

Seeing as how requesting for "What kind of spells belong to such and such class spell list" never got any real replies, I now propose a different approach to the designers here at Paizo.

What kind of spell SHOULD NOT go into a unique spell list?

For example:

These types of spells should not be accessible to a _________ Where the blank represents the class (Witch, for example).

So, what kind of spells DO NOT belong on the Witch spell list? What kind of spells should I never even consider when I am trying to increase the repertoire for the Summoner from another RPG product with magic? I also own the book "Deep Magic", so I'd like to know which of the spells in there I should not allow as new Bloodrager or Shaman spells, for example?

[gamer-printer]

While it won't help in your conversion of 3x spells updated for the new caster classes, there exists Rite Publishing's 1001 Spells, which are entirely new spells created by Steven Russell, but every caster class is included in the book with their own selection of spells available. So if you're only looking for more spells available to your caster class, there is a resource (though its not a conversion.)

[John Spalding]

Barachiel Shina wrote:

I debated on putting this either in Advice or Rules Questions, but it is actually bigger than that. Something I believe should have been addressed long ago, back when the APG came out, actually.

It seems the designers refuse to give us guidelines to increasing the repertoire of spells for classes such as Bloodrager, Magus, Summoner, and Witch. What I mean is, if we're using 3PP products (such as D&D 3.5 Spell Compendium), we would like to know what kind of spells would be appropriate for the unique spell lists of those classes.

Maybe you didn't intend to come as as demanding, but this seems a wee bit rude. Moreover, there are two kind of obvious explanations. First, Paizo is not really in the business of helping people make homebrew systems work or making sure all of the 3PP stuff they see fit into their game. Doing so doesn't (at least directly) make them any money, and may,in fact displace future book sales.

Second, Paizo has both directly and indirectly addressed this issue in several books. Ultimate Magic discusses spell design, at length, sometimes pointing out how the spell lists of various classes differ (e.g. damage caps). Moreover, the Words of Power system provides a great deal of insight into how spell lists differ. Finally, the spells themselves, printed across scores of books, are clear benchmarks for what each type of spell list is supposed to contain.

Finally, if you really like 3PP content, it seems pretty reasonable to ask the 3PP publisher to update their spell lists.

[Wrath]

I'll second John on this point. If you're running 3pp stuff designed to fit in with pathfinder, it's up to the 3pp to give you that advice, not Paizo.

Still, as John says, given all the info out there on spell design, game balance and class design, you should have more than enough to go on.

[Barachiel Shina]

John Spalding wrote:

Barachiel Shina wrote:

I debated on putting this either in Advice or Rules Questions, but it is actually bigger than that. Something I believe should have been addressed long ago, back when the APG came out, actually.

It seems the designers refuse to give us guidelines to increasing the repertoire of spells for classes such as Bloodrager, Magus, Summoner, and Witch. What I mean is, if we're using 3PP products (such as D&D 3.5 Spell Compendium), we would like to know what kind of spells would be appropriate for the unique spell lists of those classes.

Maybe you didn't intend to come as as demanding, but this seems a wee bit rude. Moreover, there are two kind of obvious explanations. First, Paizo is not really in the business of helping people make homebrew systems work or making sure all of the 3PP stuff they see fit into their game. Doing so doesn't (at least directly) make them any money, and may,in fact displace future book sales.

Second, Paizo has both directly and indirectly addressed this issue in several books. Ultimate Magic discusses spell design, at length, sometimes pointing out how the spell lists of various classes differ (e.g. damage caps). Moreover, the Words of Power system provides a great deal of insight into how spell lists differ. Finally, the spells themselves, printed across scores of books, are clear benchmarks for what each type of spell list is supposed to contain.

Finally, if you really like 3PP content, it seems pretty reasonable to ask the 3PP publisher to update their spell lists.

It seems rude, but it was in response to something one of the designers had promised to include in Ultimate Magic way back before that product was released. I dunno which designer, and a search for that post here is simple (if only I can remember which one, it was either James Jacobs or someone else) It was an agreement to include the guidelines on what sort of spells should belong to a specific class spell list if it had its own theme, like Witch.

However, they didn't bother to include it as they said they would.

As for asking the 3PP to update their lists, sadly, I highly doubt WotC would update their Spell Compendium for Pathfinder. Or Malhavoc Press. Maybe Kobold Press would update Deep Magic most likely.

[Sean K Reynolds]

I've seen this point brought up before, and I'll say what I said back then:

1) I don't know which staffer it is that supposedly said that we'd include that information in Ultimate Magic. However, I don't think anyone has found the post by that staffer saying that we'd include that information in the book, so it's hearsay (as in, "well, I remember that SOMEONE said they'd do it, and my memory must be true, so Paizo are jerks for not doing it").
3) This unidentified staffer, whoever they are, never mentioned it to me, or (as far as I know) at least didn't push to have it included in Jason's UM outline.
4) I don't recall any discussion of this topic, and certainly don't recall discussing it and then "refusing" to put that information in the book.

So, as with many things: never attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance. In other words, this is a much more likely possibility:

1a) Someone on staff heard a player suggestion to include this information in an upcoming book, and said, "that's a good idea." They might even have said, "that's a good idea, I'll make sure that gets into an upcoming book."
3a) That staffer, whoever they are, forgot about that message board conversation in the intervening months between it and seeing the UM outline.
4a) If that staffer later remembered it, it might have been too late to make changes to UM to fit that content into the book (i.e., the design was already finished by the freelancers, cutting existing material to make room for new designed-very-late was not a realistic option, and so on).

In other words, there is a VERY big difference between
Scenario X: "We were promised this, but they refused to give it to us"
and
Scenario Y: "They agreed this was a good idea, but they forgot to put it in the book"
or even
Scenario Z: "[Someone not responsible for the book] agreed this was a good idea, but [other people who are responsible for the book] never heard about it."

Based on my first-hand experience and memories of working on UM, at a time when the design team was just Jason and I, I believe Scenario Y or Z is what happened.

[nate lange]

1. thank you SKR for continuing to engage the fans with these glimpses behind the curtain.

2. i totally agree with John Spalding- 3PP materials are not Paizo's responsibility and any new product should include its own updates to class spell lists. Any GM who wants to house rule spells from 3.X or whatever other source into their campaigns can read through the guidelines he mentioned and make educated decisions on which spells would be appropriate for which classes in their campaign. and, honestly, if you're house ruling other spells into your campaign it shouldn't really matter what someone else thinks, if it fits with the feel you're trying to create for that class in your world then give it to them (just be mindful of game balance...)

[KuntaSS]

1. I also would like to make a

2. list for this thread.

[The Indescribable]

I kind of agree and disagree, on the one hand, would that be nice, yes, yes it would, and there are indications of it in the system. IIRC there's something in the alchemist's entry that says appropriate spells to becoming extracts should have a range of personal,

[blahpers]

It really seems like the sort of thing a content provider could figure out from the existing spell lists and the class description. It doesn't take a master designer to figure out that a third-party wizard spell that infuses an object with a deadly curse on the first creature to touch it would be a good candidate for the witch spell list, or that a spell that conjures a plague of locusts would be appropriate on the summoner list.

[Dave Justus]

I don't think you could build a definitive list. Some restrictions are based on official 'tags' that apply to spells, such as wizards not having cure spells, but a lot of items on special lists seem more to do with flavor than tags or spell types or even power.

I don't think most DMs have too much trouble deciding that this particular spell should be on this list or not. And I don't think their is any huge issue if they 'get it wrong' as it is unlikely to ruin balance.

Granted, I can see frustration between GMs and players, with players wanting to know about every spell, and GMs simply not having the time to build an entire database of spell lists, but by and large I think most groups can manage this without too much trouble, and those that can't probably can't because they have more significant issues anyway.