|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a quick auestion about arcanist spell's. In the advanced class guide it is written under spells,
"an arcanist casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard list, presented in chapter 10 of the core rulebook"
Is that a typo or real? Seems to me that they miss of on good spells from other books if it is.
It says they use the Sorcerer/Wizard list that includes any spells that were added to said list.
|
The errata removes the phrase "presented in chapter 10 of the core rulebook."
Spells: An arcanist casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. An arcanist must prepare her spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, her spells are not expended when they're cast. Instead, she can cast any spell that she has prepared consuming a spell slot of the appropriate level, assuming she hasn't yet used up her spell slots per day for that level.
Also, this belongs in the Rules Questions forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The errata removes the phrase "presented in chapter 10 of the core rulebook."
Spells: An arcanist casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. An arcanist must prepare her spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, her spells are not expended when they're cast. Instead, she can cast any spell that she has prepared consuming a spell slot of the appropriate level, assuming she hasn't yet used up her spell slots per day for that level.Also, this belongs in the Rules Questions forum.
Thanks for posting this link. I checked the link to the PRD and then the product description page. I did note that there was no official errata or FAQ posted for this issue. Flagging for FAQ addition.
|
aye this needs faq'd as prd is secondary to book/errata. the way i interpret it is it was only core spells to help keep the power level on par with rest of book, others say because of pregen having non core spells that makes it official yet we all know pregens break rules in thier builds. so yea faq pls
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the arcanist uses the sorc/wizard list, that is inclusive of spells added to the list post-core. If they wanted to restrict it to core only they would need to be much more specific in their wording.
The ACG new spells list also mentions the list is tailor-made for the new spellcasting classes, which would make no sense if the arcanist was restricted.
The RAI is very clear here. It doesn't need an FAQ.
rai is for home games only is issue, for those who play pfs we have to go by rules as written at which point hard cover book is different than prd and with no errata remains unclear
I challenge you to find even one judge that rules the arcanist has to pick only from the core spell list. It's a no-brainer.
|
Sarvei, you've GMed a lot of games. Surely you can't take such a hard line "RAW only" stance.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
There exists evidence that this issue has been handled, and it is common knowledge that the ACG is getting a pretty much complete overhaul.
Reconsider your position?
|
it is common knowledge that the ACG is getting a pretty much complete overhaul.
This is an aside. (I don't debate the issue of the Arcanist getting the full Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. That's pretty bloody obvious to me, and I wouldn't sit at a table with a GM that ruled it was "CRB rulebook only", even if I wasn't playing an Arcanist. If a GM ruled that PFS RAW limited the Arcanist to CRB spells, that GM is almost certainly going to make other insane rulings.)
Here's the aside: I would agree with the statement that the ACG needs massive editing (and perhaps an overhaul), but is it really common knowledge that it's getting one? I've also seen statements that Paizo has acknowledge there were serious problems with the ACG, but my Google-fu hasn't been up to finding the threads or posts where the developers admitted this, nor where they admitted that there was going to be a complete overhaul. Can you post links to where they've said this?
|
|
I would agree with the statement that the ACG needs massive editing (and perhaps an overhaul), but is it really common knowledge that it's getting one? I've also seen statements that Paizo has acknowledge there were serious problems with the ACG, but my Google-fu hasn't been up to finding the threads or posts where the developers admitted this, nor where they admitted that there was going to be a complete overhaul. Can you post links to where they've said this?