Spell Lists Drive Me Nuts


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Complaining time - man, I hate character spell lists. I really do.

I'll sit there thinking about how I'm going to make this cool bard archer. When I finish up by writing down his spells, Gravity Bow isn't on the list.

Or when I go to make a Summoner and get level 2 spells. Well, I guess I can either take Haste or handicap myself, because I'm getting these spells later than a wizard but for some reason I have an odd ball 3rd level spell on it.

I wish that there were only 3 spell lists: Arcane, Divine and Nature, and everyone just pulled off of those.

If anything, Gravity Bow should be Arcane, because you are transmuting a random object, not Nature, because bows are used in the woods.

It would also be better if they didn't jack around with the level of spells between classes. You are basically picking spells for me when you do that.


Ehmm, gravity bow is an arcane spell, it's just happens to be on the ranger's list which happens to be divine.


leo1925 wrote:
Ehmm, gravity bow is an arcane spell, it's just happens to be on the ranger's list which happens to be divine.

Yeah, but it isn't on the Bard list because Bard's, what, could use it?

Too taxing?

Bards aren't in the woods enough?

Bards aren't good casters?

Bards don't use bows?

Rangers get it.

It is like someone just randomly picked X spells for each list, for the sake of making lists.


To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?


blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?

Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.

I can see something from the angle of "spell lists need to be changed/expanded" for certain classes, but to say that spell lists as a whole should be thrown out is more trouble than it will ever be worth, imo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A single spell list would create more problems for the bard then it solves. He has some traditionally divine spells on his list, he also gets a few spells early, as opposed to sorc/wizards to account for his slower spell progression. The summoner likewise wouldnt be able to buff his eidolon very well without the natury buffs mixed in with his mostly arcane list.

While sometimes their are outliers that seem odd to be left out, the individual spell lists is a good thing for most classes.

The lists also exist to establish theme. Bards, thematically arent conjurers, they are buffers and enchanters. If bards had the whole arcane list at their disposal it would change the nature of the class, and you would likely lose some of that theme. Same thing for the summoner, ranger, paladin etc. Their spell lists are tailored to a percieved theme.

And gravity bow, though useful for specific bard builds, doesnt reside within the traditional bard theme (buffer, jack of all trades, skilled, enchanter).


Yes rangers get it because it's a spell for archers and rangers are the iconic archers with the whole hunter-woodsman thing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A magician bard could have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.

So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?


Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.

I, in general, agree. I really can't see a logical reason why spells are so limited. I mean, it's magic. Giving all casters 0-9 spell lists and simply spreading them out if they have 0-6 or 1-4 casting would have been nice for consistency's sake.

Random thoughts ...
1. Create a feat that lets you grab a few spells of other lists, something kind of like that Paladin feat Unsanctioned Knowledge, I think it's called.
2. Allow a kind of stripped-down version of spell research, easier and cheaper because the spell already exists, you just need to translate it.
3. Let people poach of other spell lists by determining what level the original class gets it at, then letting the poaching class get it at the next level at which they learn new spells. So, f'rex, Rangers get gravity bow at 4th level, IIRC. A Bard could take it as a spell known at 7th, as that's when they gain their next level of spells known.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.


blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.
So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?

It is inclusive and doesn't use metagaming story stuff like, "flavor," to justify why things are a certain way.


blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.
So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?

What, do you think Bards shouldn't be able to cast Animate Dead? They can cast 3rd level necromancy spells, like Fear, so why not raise the dead? They're in the same school, so they obviously must be equivalent. There's no way one school could have lots of different types of spells. That'd be absurd.


Definite agreement there. The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player chooses to give his character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.

I, in general, agree. I really can't see a logical reason why spells are so limited. I mean, it's magic. Giving all casters 0-9 spell lists and simply spreading them out if they have 0-6 or 1-4 casting would have been nice for consistency's sake.

Random thoughts ...
1. Create a feat that lets you grab a few spells of other lists, something kind of like that Paladin feat Unsanctioned Knowledge, I think it's called.
2. Allow a kind of stripped-down version of spell research, easier and cheaper because the spell already exists, you just need to translate it.
3. Let people poach of other spell lists by determining what level the original class gets it at, then letting the poaching class get it at the next level at which they learn new spells. So, f'rex, Rangers get gravity bow at 4th level, IIRC. A Bard could take it as a spell known at 7th, as that's when they gain their next level of spells known.

I think those are good and reasonable compromises if there were players that were actually split on the issue.

When I tell players that both they and NPC enemies can pick whatever, I've never had a complaint, and things that seem unfair or unbalanced have never come out of it.


If you're really desperate for Gravity Bow you can pick up a Ring of Spell Knowledge for 1.5k. You'll cast it as a 2nd level spell, but you'll have it.

Sczarni

I'm also pro-spell list, but I sympathize with the OP in that sometimes it seems a tad arbitrary who gets which spells. With Gravity Bow, my biggest gripe isn't that bards don't get it, it's that Sorcerers and Wizards do. A sorcerer or wizard shouldn't be pulling out their crossbow except as a last resort, much less spending spell slots to buff their crossbow damage.

I would be in favor of a general mechanic for learning spells of other classes, so that this theoretical archer bard COULD learn Gravity Bow, if he were to devote additional resources to it and perhaps get it as a higher-level spell. This way, you can indeed go "off the table" if you really want to, but there's still the idea of "this is the kind of things you're good at".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jorshamo wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.
So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?
What, do you think Bards shouldn't be able to cast Animate Dead? They can cast 3rd level necromancy spells, like Fear, so why not raise the dead? They're in the same school, so they obviously must be equivalent. There's no way one school could have lots of different types of spells. That'd be absurd.

A Bard should definitely be able to cast Animate Dead. The dabbling, bumbling traveler messing with powers like that is an old trope. If it were more powerful than fear, it would be a higher level. If it called on different magic or knowledge than fear, it would be in a different school.


Silent Saturn wrote:

I'm also pro-spell list, but I sympathize with the OP in that sometimes it seems a tad arbitrary who gets which spells. With Gravity Bow, my biggest gripe isn't that bards don't get it, it's that Sorcerers and Wizards do. A sorcerer or wizard shouldn't be pulling out their crossbow except as a last resort, much less spending spell slots to buff their crossbow damage.

I would be in favor of a general mechanic for learning spells of other classes, so that this theoretical archer bard COULD learn Gravity Bow, if he were to devote additional resources to it and perhaps get it as a higher-level spell. This way, you can indeed go "off the table" if you really want to, but there's still the idea of "this is the kind of things you're good at".

I honestly think Bards don't get gravity bow so that they make worse arcane archers. I am working towards one now, and so I've got 1 level of sorcerer and two of fighter, with true strike and gravity bow.

I would like to make a skald arcane archer, but they don't get the basic arcane archer spell either.


Cranefist wrote:
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.

Apparently not, since they're only allowed to pick from a limited list representing spells that a bard is capable of casting using whatever means a bard uses to cast spells. If you want your bard to learn to adapt spells that bards normally cannot cast, there's an archetype for that.


Cranefist wrote:
Jorshamo wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.
So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?
What, do you think Bards shouldn't be able to cast Animate Dead? They can cast 3rd level necromancy spells, like Fear, so why not raise the dead? They're in the same school, so they obviously must be equivalent. There's no way one school could have lots of different types of spells. That'd be absurd.
A Bard should definitely be able to cast Animate Dead. The dabbling, bumbling traveler messing with powers like that is an old trope. If it were more powerful than fear, it would be a higher level. If it called on different magic or knowledge than fear, it would be in a different school.

Why is school relevant?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.

Apparently not, since they're only allowed to pick from a limited list representing spells that a bard is capable of casting using whatever means a bard uses to cast spells. If you want your bard to learn to adapt spells that bards normally cannot cast, there's an archetype for that.

boooorrriiinnngggg

I don't think there is a justification for the spell lists.

"We should have spell lists cause D&D."

"How many spells go on the list?"

"You have to fit them on 7 pages."

"Got it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cranefist wrote:
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.

Medicine is a school of knowledge. Do you think all knowledge of a particular field is immediately available to someone the day they enter college?

What spells they can pick from is far from besides the point. The Bard does not have specialized knowledge "because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer". The bard is a dabbler. He can do a bit of this and a bit of that. Which gives him a large range of knowledge, but means that(unless he takes alternate routes) there are holes in that knowledge that are typically field by specialization.

But now for an argument more on your level:

What do you mean you are an oncologist!? All doctors know everything! RAWHWHA.


As a note, this thread makes me happy, because it made me aware of what the Magician archetype does. From there, I learned that Magician stacks with Watersinger.

I can't believe I spent so long trying to find a way to get Nereid's Grace on a charisma caster when the answer was right there in front of me


The bard spell list is awesome.

They have trouble keeping up in personal damage cause their self buffing buffs the whole party.

Bard archers still do tons of damage though. They don't really need gravity bow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
He can do a bit of this and a bit of that.

The player should decide what those bits are, not the system. Why can't you 'dabble' in Gravity Bow or Fireball?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can see the gist of the complaint. On the other hand this would be a nerf to every partial caster with a custom list in a lot of ways if you made a generic list (and therefore denied them early access to some higher level spells).

Zhayne wrote:
The player should decide what those bits are, not the system. Why can't you 'dabble' in Gravity Bow or Fireball?

More stuff like the Advanced Learning class features the 3.5 specialist casters had would be pretty cool tbh.


The perfect solution would have been to balance spell schools for arcane/descriptors for divine and then have the classes spell list pull from a limited list.

For example bard spellcasting blurb could be

"A bard can cast arcane spells up to 6th level. He has access to all enchantment and divination spells up to 6th, and summoning and transmutation spells of levels up to 3rd."

Just as an example.

Instead of having either a huge list that needs to be amended when new spells come out, or having to errata existing spells whenever a new class with its own spell list comes out.


Zhayne wrote:
Corrik wrote:
He can do a bit of this and a bit of that.
The player should decide what those bits are, not the system. Why can't you 'dabble' in Gravity Bow or Fireball?

Why don't non-Fire domain clerics know fireball Why don't fighters know fly?


I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.

Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.


Fighters is because they don't cast.

Clerics is a good question though. Why does any cleric know any spell not covered by his domain abilities? Why is Rovagug handing out CLW and protection from evil?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:

Fighters is because they don't cast.

Clerics is a good question though. Why does any cleric know any spell not covered by his domain abilities? Why is Rovagug handing out CLW and protection from evil?

I totally agree with this. The 'generic' cleric list bugs the hell out of me for precisely that reason. If your god isn't a god of healing (or your philosophy doesn't lend itself to it), you shouldn't be casting healing spells, and so on, and so forth.


Imo, cleric should have been the "skilled" 3/4BAB 6/9 caster class that has limited spell selection (limited to his domains) but makes up for it by wearing armor, weapons, domain and channel abilities, while druids should have been the 1/2 BAB, 9/9 casters with no armor or any good weapons, who make up for it with versatile spell-list (as they worship a force greater than any single god, they could access all dem sweet spells they want).

But that ship sailed...


I don't think I would have separated the two on those lines ... I have trouble thinking of a druid as anything more than a cleric with 'nature' domains anyway.


Zhayne wrote:
I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.

Non-Fire domain clerics, not Fire domain clerics.

Quote:
Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.

But isn't that "boooorrriiinnngggg"?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If only there was some way that spell lists could just be modified to taste. It sucks that the Paizo team said "here's the rules, you better not alter them!" I had to buy a new CRB when my first one burst into flames the second I changed a rule I didn't like. I'm afraid to use the PRD now because I don't want my computer to explode.


Eh, I'm just trying to cover as much in core as possible.

Now that I think about it, sorcerer would have totally worked as the arcane counterpart to the paladin as well (with only a shred of talent from some recessive bloodline why do they even get 9th level spells?). And you could shift around for ranger to become the 6/9 primal caster, barb 4/9, monk for the 6/9 divine, (with cleric staying at 9/9, pally covering 4/9).

And then superbuff the fighter and the rogue and think really hard how you'd cover a magic-less 1/2 BAB class maybe if you are into that sort of stuff.

Or something. I like system symmetry.


Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.

Apparently not, since they're only allowed to pick from a limited list representing spells that a bard is capable of casting using whatever means a bard uses to cast spells. If you want your bard to learn to adapt spells that bards normally cannot cast, there's an archetype for that.

boooorrriiinnngggg

I don't think there is a justification for the spell lists.

"We should have spell lists cause D&D."

"How many spells go on the list?"

"You have to fit them on 7 pages."

"Got it."

lol, no disagreement here! Spell lists are definitely composed in large part of arbitrarium, and I often imagine game designers rolling a die and consulting one of Gygax's in/famous random tables to determine who gets which spell and at what level.

It was arguably necessary back when a magic-user's only class feature was his spell list (and possibly turn undead), but now it's just arbitrariness for the sake of Tradition.

Sovereign Court

Heh just play a voice of the wild bard archetype, you get to pick ranger or druid spells.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would very much like to see a codified "this is a universal rule for how to adapt spells that are from a different list."

Ideally it would be something as simple as a universal: When you learn a new spell, you may take a spell from another spell list. It counts as one spell-level higher.


LoneKnave wrote:

Fighters is because they don't cast.

Clerics is a good question though. Why does any cleric know any spell not covered by his domain abilities? Why is Rovagug handing out CLW and protection from evil?

Rovagug doesn't give access to protection from evil nor to protection from chaos.


Ignoring my suspicion that the OP is just trolling...I like the concept of one single unified spell list, ala Arcana Evolved/Unearthed. From there casters just use feats (or bonus feats based on class) to gain access. Well, I guess it's more than "one unified list"...there is the big list of spells, and each spell is either common, rare, or exotic, with the feats/abilities giving you access to the various categories...but yeah...I wish PF would have gone this route...


The problem with limited spell lists is then every character will tend to have the same spells. This is the way it was in 1st edition when there were only 4 spell lists. You had cleric, magic user, druid and illusionist spells. Paladins got cleric spells; rangers used both magic user and druid. Bards were a weird case where you had to start as fighter, then go thief, and then could become a bard; who gets druid spells.

This usually meant that similar characters had the same spells. This also created the situation where you had to have certain classes. This is where the idea of the standard party of fighter, cleric, magic user, and thief comes from. I for one am glad that has changed. Now if no one wants to play a cleric his role can be covered by multiple other classes. Doing away with specialized spell lists would mean that would no longer be the same.


Mysterious...I'm assuming that was a general response to the thread? I'm not sure I fully get some of your points...right now similar characters have similar spells...

But as for the no cleric thing...having one list helps quite a bit with this. In AE (I mentioned it in my post above) the guy throwing out the area of effect damage spells and battlefield control spells, is also healing people...and the guy who's healing and buffing the party, is also throwing out area of effect...

There's still a bit of diversity with the exotic spells and the fact that some of the classes (half casters, the equivalent of bards, rangers, paladins, ect...) are largely limited to only the common spells and maybe a few very specific others. But ultimately it loosens the party role issue quite a bit.


Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD


Zhayne wrote:

I have no idea why Fire Domain clerics don't know Fireball. That's a freakin' no-brainer.

Fighters don't know fly because they aren't spellcasters.

Shouldn't it be up to the player to determine whether or not their fighter is a spellcaster?


Fraust wrote:

Mysterious...I'm assuming that was a general response to the thread? I'm not sure I fully get some of your points...right now similar characters have similar spells...

But as for the no cleric thing...having one list helps quite a bit with this. In AE (I mentioned it in my post above) the guy throwing out the area of effect damage spells and battlefield control spells, is also healing people...and the guy who's healing and buffing the party, is also throwing out area of effect...

There's still a bit of diversity with the exotic spells and the fact that some of the classes (half casters, the equivalent of bards, rangers, paladins, ect...) are largely limited to only the common spells and maybe a few very specific others. But ultimately it loosens the party role issue quite a bit.

With all the healing spells on the divine list than you cannot have an arcane healer. I have seen both a bard and a witch cover the role of healer. Having fewer spell list means that there is no overlap and some characters lose important spells. Inquisitors for example get a lot of utility spells like knock and invisibility that other divine caster do not. Under the few spell list idea they would lose access to them and their spell casting would be identical to a clerics.

The point is that more sell lists allow for a greater variety of classes. If all the spell lists are the same then the difference between the classes is diminished. If there is only one arcane list then bards would be tossing around fireballs, and lightning bolts. Access to better spell lists is an important part of the class.


Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD

IME, DMs treat particular rules which they happen to disagree with as guidelines, while other rules get treated as gospel. Or at least as "There's gotta be a good reason this rule exists, even if I have no idea what that reason might be..."

Maybe you've been luckier than I, and have had more liberal DMs, but based on the replies to this very thread, how likely do you think it is that any given DM will see this particular rule as a guideline?

1 to 50 of 271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Spell Lists Drive Me Nuts All Messageboards