Can sorcerers learn non-S / W spells?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

_Ozy_ wrote:


If they didn't want dragons to follow the rules of sorcerers, there's another way to avoid it. Don't say that they cast spells as sorcerers. Just what do you suppose that sentence actually means instead?

That they're spontaneous casters, using the sorcerer tables for spells known and spells/day.


thejeff wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


If they didn't want dragons to follow the rules of sorcerers, there's another way to avoid it. Don't say that they cast spells as sorcerers. Just what do you suppose that sentence actually means instead?
That they're spontaneous casters, using the sorcerer tables for spells known and spells/day.

They provide the spells known in the statblock, as well as the spells per day. Furthermore, spells in their statblock sometimes are not from the sorcerer list. What additional information does the 'cast as sorcerers' tell you?

Do they likewise not need any V or S components to their spells? Do they automatically have still and silent spell as well as eschew materials?


OK, I've been pondering what I'd find to be reasonable for "study," and I've come up with a graduated system that totally ignores the 3.0 idea that a scroll or page of a spellbook would suffice. What do you all think?

I) Any spell that is thematically linked to the bloodline is simply available as a normal spell pick, provided any arcane class has it on their spell list. The spell has the highest level listed for any class. You do not need special study or even exposure to learn a thematic spell when you level up.

II) Any other spell on an arcane class's spell list is available as a normal spell pick only through tutelage. That is, written sources aren't good enough for learning -- you need someone who knows the spell {from an arcane class} to work with you so you can figure out how to cast it spontaneously. You must already be able to cast spells of the level the spell will be for you -- the highest level listed for any class.

First, you must find a tutor, and pay what a wizard would pay to write a spell of the appropriate level into his spellbook as your practice costs. This tutelage takes 8 hours (one day) per level of the spell for you, and your tutor will cast the spell once every 4 hours (expending a spell slot), all of which you may have to pay for. In addition, if the spell requires expensive material components, you must pay double the cost for every 4 hours of instruction. If you are learning on the road, you and your tutor must devote all of your odd moments (4 hours total) to your lessons, but you gain only 2 hours progress per day. Your tutor must still cast the spell once per day; this will cost you twice the cost of any expensive material components.

The days devoted to your lessons need not be continuous. At the end of it, you may add the spell to your list of spells known, provided you have a spell of the appropriate level unpicked. If not, you may add the spell to your list of spells known at any subsequent level-up; until you do so, you cannot cast it.

III) You can learn any spell, arcane or divine, as an arcane spell through spell research, using the rules in Ultimate Campaign. Such a spell comes in at the highest level listed for any class. It takes longer and costs more than the tutelage described above -- but you gain the spell as an extra spell over and above your normal spell picks.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
I guess what I'm wondering, is why do sorcerers have this wording, and wizards do not? Is this just a meaningless difference, or do sorcerers really get access to spells or spell lists that wizards do not?

Because arcane casters have a "independent research" passage and divine casters also. It my have been felt that it wasn't obvious that Sorcerers can independent research.


_Ozy_ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


If they didn't want dragons to follow the rules of sorcerers, there's another way to avoid it. Don't say that they cast spells as sorcerers. Just what do you suppose that sentence actually means instead?
That they're spontaneous casters, using the sorcerer tables for spells known and spells/day.
They provide the spells known in the statblock, as well as the spells per day. Furthermore, spells in their statblock sometimes are not from the sorcerer list. What additional information does the 'cast as sorcerers' tell you?

At least in the original Bestiary, they only provide spells and spells/day for a couple of age categories. The rest you have to extrapolate.


thejeff wrote:
Quote:
They provide the spells known in the statblock, as well as the spells per day. Furthermore, spells in their statblock sometimes are not from the sorcerer list. What additional information does the 'cast as sorcerers' tell you?
At least in the original Bestiary, they only provide spells and spells/day for a couple of age categories. The rest you have to extrapolate.

Fair enough, but do they require V and S components 'as sorcerers', or is there some rule regarding dragon magic that lets us know otherwise?

Also, if they gain levels in sorcerer, how do these levels interact with their 'dragon sorcerer' levels?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

If you cast as a class and gain levels in the class, the levels stack.


James Risner wrote:
If you cast as a class and gain levels in the class, the levels stack.

Do the spells gained from your sorcerer levels use the rules for sorcerers, or use the rules for 'dragon magic'?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the whole idea of the Sorcerer that they cast LIKE magical creatures?

When you see a Dragon Sorcerer is he not getting his powers from his draconic ancestors muddied down by his humanoid parents?

So the line in dragon descriptions "like a sorcerer" isn't there to say dragons do things like sorcerers, its to remind you that they are where Sorcerers got their start/power/casting capabilities in the first place. Sorcerers get eschew materials? its because of their Fey/Dragon/Ghoul/Djin/whatever had magic in their BLOOD that passed into your sorcerer to allow them to cast in the first place.

Fluff doesn't always matter for WHAT the rules are, but for sorcerers it matters for WHY the rules are.

(My Input as a GM, and i understand that fluff is not RAW)


_Ozy_ wrote:
Do they likewise not need any V or S components to their spells? Do they automatically have still and silent spell as well as eschew materials?

Sorcerers get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. Not Still or Silent Spell. It's easy to assume that the devs simply overlooked giving dragons Eschew Materials -- but there's no reason that they might have intended any other feats but omitted them.

And it ultimately depends on how the GM visualizes dragons in their world. Should paralyzing a dragon stop them from casting spells unless they learn two feats? In literature, dragons generally speak spells out loud. I've even seen at least one mythos where dragons spoke the magic tongue natively, and humanoids had to learn it from them for spellcasting. And while it's a little undignified if a dragon has to wave its forelegs about in grand gestures, I suppose it would be possible that a dragon has different magical gestures than humanoids have adopted, gestures that involve wings as well as hands but are more subtle than humanoid gestures. So no, I personally don't see any need to give them Still or Silent Spell.

Eschew Materials is different. How many stories have you read where the dragon pulls things out of a massive pouch to cast spells? (And when you think about the huge or gargantuan hand that's doing the pulling, you realize that it really would have to be a massive-sized pouch.) My count: none. And is the GM going to populate the world with vendors who pull up to dragon dens on a regular basis with a cartload of different material components to sell? The whole concept is absurd.

It's only reasonable to say that they get the one bonus feat because... dragons. And can cast the spells specifically listed for them because... dragons. And are in no way an argument for what humanoid sorcerers can do because... dragons.

(Although I still like the idea of a gold dragon tutor.)


Disturbed1Smurf wrote:

Isn't the whole idea of the Sorcerer that they cast LIKE magical creatures?

When you see a Dragon Sorcerer is he not getting his powers from his draconic ancestors muddied down by his humanoid parents?

So the line in dragon descriptions "like a sorcerer" isn't there to say dragons do things like sorcerers, its to remind you that they are where Sorcerers got their start/power/casting capabilities in the first place. Sorcerers get eschew materials? its because of their Fey/Dragon/Ghoul/Djin/whatever had magic in their BLOOD that passed into your sorcerer to allow them to cast in the first place.

Fluff doesn't always matter for WHAT the rules are, but for sorcerers it matters for WHY the rules are.

(My Input as a GM, and i understand that fluff is not RAW)

Yes!


bitter lily wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Do they likewise not need any V or S components to their spells? Do they automatically have still and silent spell as well as eschew materials?

Sorcerers get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. Not Still or Silent Spell. It's easy to assume that the devs simply overlooked giving dragons Eschew Materials -- but there's no reason that they might have intended any other feats but omitted them.

And it ultimately depends on how the GM visualizes dragons in their world. Should paralyzing a dragon stop them from casting spells unless they learn two feats? In literature, dragons generally speak spells out loud. I've even seen at least one mythos where dragons spoke the magic tongue natively, and humanoids had to learn it from them for spellcasting. And while it's a little undignified if a dragon has to wave its forelegs about in grand gestures, I suppose it would be possible that a dragon has different magical gestures than humanoids have adopted, gestures that involve wings as well as hands but are more subtle than humanoid gestures. So no, I personally don't see any need to give them Still or Silent Spell.

Eschew Materials is different. How many stories have you read where the dragon pulls things out of a massive pouch to cast spells? (And when you think about the huge or gargantuan hand that's doing the pulling, you realize that it really would have to be a massive-sized pouch.) My count: none. And is the GM going to populate the world with vendors who pull up to dragon dens on a regular basis with a cartload of different material components to sell? The whole concept is absurd.

It's only reasonable to say that they get the one bonus feat because... dragons. And can cast the spells specifically listed for them because... dragons. And are in no way an argument for what humanoid sorcerers can do because... dragons.

(Although I still like the idea of a gold dragon tutor.)

They don't have Eschew Materials because like a lot of thing in the Core book it was made hastily to get it out the door quick and whoever wrote the dragon entry didn't coordinate with whoever wrote the Sorcerer entry and make sure Eschew Materials was a Bonus Feat rather than a feature of Spontaneous Casting.

Same reason people are surprised when I tell them Bards and Inquisitors and Oracles, etc. need a spell component pouch.


bitter lily wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Do they likewise not need any V or S components to their spells? Do they automatically have still and silent spell as well as eschew materials?

Sorcerers get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. Not Still or Silent Spell. It's easy to assume that the devs simply overlooked giving dragons Eschew Materials -- but there's no reason that they might have intended any other feats but omitted them.

And it ultimately depends on how the GM visualizes dragons in their world. Should paralyzing a dragon stop them from casting spells unless they learn two feats? In literature, dragons generally speak spells out loud. I've even seen at least one mythos where dragons spoke the magic tongue natively, and humanoids had to learn it from them for spellcasting. And while it's a little undignified if a dragon has to wave its forelegs about in grand gestures, I suppose it would be possible that a dragon has different magical gestures than humanoids have adopted, gestures that involve wings as well as hands but are more subtle than humanoid gestures. So no, I personally don't see any need to give them Still or Silent Spell.

Eschew Materials is different. How many stories have you read where the dragon pulls things out of a massive pouch to cast spells? (And when you think about the huge or gargantuan hand that's doing the pulling, you realize that it really would have to be a massive-sized pouch.) My count: none. And is the GM going to populate the world with vendors who pull up to dragon dens on a regular basis with a cartload of different material components to sell? The whole concept is absurd.

It's only reasonable to say that they get the one bonus feat because... dragons. And can cast the spells specifically listed for them because... dragons. And are in no way an argument for what humanoid sorcerers can do because... dragons.

(Although I still like the idea of a gold dragon tutor.)

Do they have the feat or not? I mean, sorcerers with the feat still need a component pouch for spells with expensive components. So even if the dragons have a feat that isn't listed, they still need a pouch. Unless 'dragon magic' doesn't even need expensive material components.

Can a dragon cast a wish spell without paying the 25k?

I'm not so much concerned with how dragons cast spell in whatever fantasy novel you're using to form your opinion, just how the mechanics are supposed to work in Pathfinder.


Note to self: In future, fill dragon's hoard with spell components.


Quote:
They don't have Eschew Materials because like a lot of thing in the Core book it was made hastily to get it out the door quick and whoever wrote the dragon entry didn't coordinate with whoever wrote the Sorcerer entry and make sure Eschew Materials was a Bonus Feat rather than a feature of Spontaneous Casting.

To be fair, Paizo didn't write the dragon entry. They just copied it directly from 3.5 D&D. Sorcerers didn't get Eschew Materials automatically back then, and neither did dragons.

And as Ozy mentioned, even with Eschew Materials you still have reason to carry the pouch - not only is it a convient place to store any of the expensive components you are carring around, the pouch automatically comes with all the non-costly focuses you need (as the feat does not remove the need for those at all).

So feat or not, both dragons and sorcerers would most likely still have the component pouch.


Barring some sort of special 'dragon magic' that comes with a supercharged 'really eschew all materials' ability.


_Ozy_ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
They provide the spells known in the statblock, as well as the spells per day. Furthermore, spells in their statblock sometimes are not from the sorcerer list. What additional information does the 'cast as sorcerers' tell you?
At least in the original Bestiary, they only provide spells and spells/day for a couple of age categories. The rest you have to extrapolate.

Fair enough, but do they require V and S components 'as sorcerers', or is there some rule regarding dragon magic that lets us know otherwise?

Also, if they gain levels in sorcerer, how do these levels interact with their 'dragon sorcerer' levels?

They don't because they don't need to. They gain dragon HD as they age , and that comes with spell progression. There really is no need to add sorcerer levels to a dragon. It also gets rather weird when you do so... especially when you do so via a non-draonic bloodline, so I generally don't add class levels to dragons.

That said Warcraft D20 managed to do so fairly seamlessly. but then again it used 3.X sorcerers which did not have the complex issues of the Pathfinder version of the class.


Jeraa wrote:
To be fair, Paizo didn't write the dragon entry. They just copied it directly from 3.5 D&D. Sorcerers didn't get Eschew Materials automatically back then, and neither did dragons.

It wasn't copied directly though... Every single dragon has been changed from 3.5e. The formatting of true dragons was completely changed, and very single dragon has abilities that it never got in previous generations (for example silver dragons getting Cold Aura, Fog Vision, Graceful Flight, Reflexive Scales and True Courage).


_Ozy_ wrote:
I'm not so much concerned with how dragons cast spell in whatever fantasy novel you're using to form your opinion, just how the mechanics are supposed to work in Pathfinder.

The rules for player characters are spelled out in their class mechanics. The rules for monsters are in their entries. Dragon spellcasting is clearly laid out in their dragon entries. You don't have to deal with squirrelly bits like bloodline powers and arcana for dragons, and there really is no reason to try to straitjacket them into PC classes.

Presumably dragons can cast their spells without components because that's part of what they are. And they probably have dragon style somatic and verbal components which means you can probably shut off their spell casting with a silence spell. (at least until they fly outof the area of effect.) As far as somatics go, not many players are going to be in the position to do anything about it.

One of the ways players may spot a dragon in human form casting spells may be in the way they cast.


Milo v3 wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
To be fair, Paizo didn't write the dragon entry. They just copied it directly from 3.5 D&D. Sorcerers didn't get Eschew Materials automatically back then, and neither did dragons.
It wasn't copied directly though... Every single dragon has been changed from 3.5e. The formatting of true dragons was completely changed, and very single dragon has abilities that it never got in previous generations (for example silver dragons getting Cold Aura, Fog Vision, Graceful Flight, Reflexive Scales and True Courage).

I was going to say I was only talking about the spells section, but that did get a minor wording change:

3.5 D&D wrote:

Spells

A dragon knows and casts arcane spells as a sorcerer of the level indicated in its variety description, gaining bonus spells for a high Charisma score. Some dragons can also cast spells from the cleric list or cleric domain lists as arcane spells.

Pathfinder wrote:
Spells: A dragon knows and casts arcane spells as a sorcerer of the level indicated in its specific description. Its caster level depends on its age, as shown for each type.

It still effectively says the same thing, however, just with different words. Casting as a sorcerer (with a few types adding in clerics spells as castable as well).


Cantriped wrote:
I don't think Clerics are going to be rendered obsolete by sorcerers getting healing spells. Clerics will still have more hit points, more skill pints, better BAB, armor proficiencies, the ability to cast in armor without opportunity cost, and most importantly, Channel Energy. If ever there is an oracle in the same party as the healing sorcerer, I imagine they will simply spend their spells known being good at something else. There aren't usually a whole lot of people fighting over who "gets" to be the healer in the group... so I imagine whoever is playing the healing sorcerer would have been playing a cleric, oracle, or witch if "healing sorcerer" weren't available.

Not to mention that the cleric list has lots of nice little corner case spells that aren't really suited to the sorcerer list, but when you need them you need them. I doubt a sorcerer would spend a spell known on Remove Blindness/Deafness, while the cleric could just pray for it the next day to cure any blinded party members.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
I'm not so much concerned with how dragons cast spell in whatever fantasy novel you're using to form your opinion, just how the mechanics are supposed to work in Pathfinder.

The rules for player characters are spelled out in their class mechanics. The rules for monsters are in their entries. Dragon spellcasting is clearly laid out in their dragon entries. You don't have to deal with squirrelly bits like bloodline powers and arcana for dragons, and there really is no reason to try to straitjacket them into PC classes.

Presumably dragons can cast their spells without components because that's part of what they are. And they probably have dragon style somatic and verbal components which means you can probably shut off their spell casting with a silence spell. (at least until they fly outof the area of effect.) As far as somatics go, not many players are going to be in the position to do anything about it.

One of the ways players may spot a dragon in human form casting spells may be in the way they cast.

So, just to be clear, you are in support of a dragon being able to cast spells without the need expensive material components, like wish, resurrection, and so on?

However, the 'rules for monsters' actually are not laid out in their entirety in their entries. They follow the rules for combat in the player handbook, just like players. So, why wouldn't they follow the rules for magic as well? Again, why say that they cast like sorcerers (a player class) if they don't actually cast like sorcerers (a player class)? I never said that they 'were' sorcerers, or that they got all of the sorcerer abilities or feats. I said the rules say that they 'cast like sorcerers', which indicates that the rules are not self-contained.

In fact, the rules seem to be specifically contradicting you.


Jeraa wrote:
It still effectively says the same thing, however, just with different words. Casting as a sorcerer (with a few types adding in clerics spells as castable as well).

Interestingly enough, the silver dragon has a few spells on its list that are both cleric and wizard/sorcerer spells, but they show up at the cleric level, not the wizard/sorcerer level. (e.g. repulsion and plane shift)


_Ozy_ wrote:

Do they have the feat or not? I mean, sorcerers with the feat still need a component pouch for spells with expensive components. So even if the dragons have a feat that isn't listed, they still need a pouch. Unless 'dragon magic' doesn't even need expensive material components.

Can a dragon cast a wish spell without paying the 25k?

I'm not so much concerned with how dragons cast spell in whatever fantasy novel you're using to form your opinion, just how the mechanics are supposed to work in Pathfinder.

Sorry, in my games literature forms a big, big piece of how I imagine my world. Maybe for others, it's movies. Or computer games. I will support any GM's right to play monsters the way they imagine them, based on whatever sources fuel their imagination. Especially iconic monsters like dragons. I also insist on a degree of three-dimensionality to my world. If my dragon has to have a material component pouch, for trivial components I mean, there's going to be a vendor who shows up periodically to sell the dragon some more. Avoiding this sort of bizarre consequence should, for me, trump slavishly following a feat list as published, given that it sure looks like a bonus feat got omitted.

If a FAQ could get applied to mean that a Gold Dragon can't cast its spells (because they aren't on the sorc/wiz list and aren't granted by a class feature), avoiding that sort of bizarre consequence should trump slavishly following the FAQ for that monster. That's really what I was trying to say.

But I opened a can of off-topic wyrms, I admit. So my answer about Wishes: Do you as GM want 25,000 gp diamonds lying about in a great wyrm's hoard? Assuming it's a type that actually gets to 19th-CL as a great wyrm, you can give it Wish. (Mind you, I started scanning the variant great wyrm write-ups in the d20pfsrd, and didn't spot any Wishes before I quit.) And maybe you have a Mythic-level party that thinks they can eat great wyrms for breakfast. If they're right, they'll be picking up some very nice diamonds off the ground of the dragon's den -- or wherever else it stored its hoard.

Similarly, if a dragon needs a focus component for a specific spell on its short spells-known list, then it's going to have that focus in its den. Prominently, in the case of a mirror, say. Or simply worn on its person. But most sorcerous spells don't need them.

I just don't think dragons need pouches. Or want them. Or would have a belt to hang a pouch from. Or could see a pouch hanging from its neck as it would be fiddling about inside for a component. Although I can visualize the last idea a lot better if there's a single focus inside, or a single Wish-caliber diamond, than if the poor creature has to find what it wants within a welter of cheap spell components that it needs for all of its other spells.

But now I'm going back to visualization and story-telling over slavishly following the rules as written -- and most likely, poorly edited.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
I'm not so much concerned with how dragons cast spell in whatever fantasy novel you're using to form your opinion, just how the mechanics are supposed to work in Pathfinder.

The rules for player characters are spelled out in their class mechanics. The rules for monsters are in their entries. Dragon spellcasting is clearly laid out in their dragon entries. You don't have to deal with squirrelly bits like bloodline powers and arcana for dragons, and there really is no reason to try to straitjacket them into PC classes.

Presumably dragons can cast their spells without components because that's part of what they are. And they probably have dragon style somatic and verbal components which means you can probably shut off their spell casting with a silence spell. (at least until they fly outof the area of effect.) As far as somatics go, not many players are going to be in the position to do anything about it.

One of the ways players may spot a dragon in human form casting spells may be in the way they cast.

Dragons don't have their own version of Somatic and Verbal components, they just have Somatic and Verbal components.

They can speak (usually quite a few languages), and Pathfinder dragons actually have fingers, going by both artwork and James Jacobs' statements from a while back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Dragon fingers" sounds like a fantasy themed name for hot wings.


Off topic, I know, but a thought on dragons and their casting. Not canonical, most likely anyways, but a way of presenting things;

Dragons are prone to getting things caught under their nails and scales. Dragons keep hoards of gold to swim in, lay on, and so on; not only for any greed they have but to serve to ease the irritation caused by this. On the plus side of this, between the items in their hoard and the things prone to irritate them, they never want for components for their spells.

The red dragon wants to cast Displacement, a loop of leather is caught somewhere on its form. Lesser wish? Theres bound to be such a diamond somewhere in the pile..


For what it's worth, Samsarans have an easy way to poach other arcane spells. The Sage or Empyreal Bloodlines complement them nicely, but aren't necessary.

As far as deliciously poachable arcane spells go, consider the applications for using the Blood Havoc and Blood Intensity Bloodline Mutations with the Bard spell Thundering Drums and some metamagic... straight-up Tactical Nuke.


bitter lily wrote:

Sorry, in my games literature forms a big, big piece of how I imagine my world. Maybe for others, it's movies. Or computer games. I will support any GM's right to play monsters the way they imagine them, based on whatever sources fuel their imagination. Especially iconic monsters like dragons. I also insist on a degree of three-dimensionality to my world. If my dragon has to have a material component pouch, for trivial components I mean, there's going to be a vendor who shows up periodically to sell the dragon some more. Avoiding this sort of bizarre consequence should, for me, trump slavishly following a feat list as published, given that it sure looks like a bonus feat got omitted.

If a FAQ could get applied to mean that a Gold Dragon can't cast its spells (because they aren't on the sorc/wiz list and aren't granted by a class feature), avoiding that sort of bizarre consequence should trump slavishly following the FAQ for that monster. That's really what I was trying to say.

But I opened a can of off-topic wyrms, I admit. So my answer about Wishes: Do you as GM want 25,000 gp diamonds lying about in a great wyrm's hoard? Assuming it's a type that actually gets to 19th-CL as a great wyrm, you can give it Wish. (Mind you, I started scanning the variant great wyrm write-ups in the d20pfsrd, and didn't spot any Wishes before I quit.) And maybe you have a Mythic-level party that thinks they can eat great wyrms for breakfast. If they're right, they'll be picking up some very nice diamonds off the ground of the dragon's den -- or wherever else it stored its hoard.

Similarly, if a dragon needs a focus component for a specific spell on its short spells-known list, then it's going to have that focus in its den. Prominently, in the case of a mirror, say. Or simply worn on its person. But most sorcerous spells don't need them.

I just don't think dragons need pouches. Or want them. Or would have a belt to hang a pouch from. Or could see a pouch hanging from its neck as it would be fiddling about inside for a component. Although I can visualize the last idea a lot better if there's a single focus inside, or a single Wish-caliber diamond, than if the poor creature has to find what it wants within a welter of cheap spell components that it needs for all of its other spells.

If you want to make house rules based on the latest fantasy novel you've read, more power to you. Again, I'm looking for consistent game mechanics for how monster spell casting is treated, whether that be dragons, lamia matriarchs, nagas, or other monsters that 'cast as sorcerers'.

It's not just wishes, it's other spells with expensive components, like resurrection (ancient gold), restoration, stoneskin (old) and yes wish (great wyrm gold dragon) just for examples.

Some monsters have the eschew materials feat, some do not. With or without the feat, I can't imagine that it's a good idea to let monsters cast spells without needing the expensive components, if only because that gives players another route to getting access to them.


bitter lily wrote:


[EtA: Another quote from Core...

Core under Magic wrote:
Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way. [...] With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring.
Here, it's not "study," it's "coming...

I bolded the onlyy relevant part.

So yes, they can, if the GM wants so. They can't, if the GM doesn't want so


I've always read it as a GM fiat that lets u use a created spell or a spell that thematic to the bloodline, or just any arcane spell that the GM okays.
This isn't added/extra spells that the sorcerer can learn, this would take the place of a spell u would have gained when leveling up.
I've seen it as a good way thru getting GM's okay (and NOT as something the GM has to bend knee to) to get a spell since wizards can basically get an unlimited amount of spells known thru spell books and whatnot.
I believe the main reason for the text was to give access to sorcerers thru GM permission to be able to cast spells that monsters/enemies had access to that players did not at the time such as "blood money" and such. A wizard would be able to have learn the spell simply by having it in a spell book but that would have given the wizard with even more goodies that the sorcerer by the rules would never have access to since they cannot learn from spell books or scrolls the same way a wizard does. This was a way to preemptively let the sorcerer stay on same page of wizards in those situations. Just my 2 cents.

Basically it's something u have to ask ur GM about and the book says it's okay if the GM chooses to.


_Ozy_ wrote:

It's not just wishes, it's other spells with expensive components, like resurrection (ancient gold), restoration, stoneskin (old) and yes wish (great wyrm gold dragon) just for examples.

Some monsters have the eschew materials feat, some do not. With or without the feat, I can't imagine that it's a good idea to let monsters cast spells without needing the expensive components, if only because that gives players another route to getting access to them.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Shadow Lodge

I believe that the text refers to bloodline spells and the general rules for spell research (in case it wasn't clear that sorcerers could research spells like wizards can).

I am amenable to letting sorcerers learn spells that are thematically related to their bloodlines as ordinary spells known without all the costs associated with research, but it would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and may require some extra effort depending on the spell and bloodline. I have no problem, for example, with a fire elemental bloodline sorcerer just learning blistering invective, and I would allow a gold dragon bloodline sorcerer to go on a quest to find a draconic tutor to learn a handful of spells from the cleric list.

(If someone was interested in playing a healing focused celestial sorcerer I'm almost inclined to go in the opposite direction and say that they cast arcane spells from the cleric/oracle list with a handful of appropriate spells from the sorc/wiz list added, mostly abjuration or spells associated with a specific outsider like fire spells for someone with a peri ancestor.)


So Weirdo, you'd go with my I & III, but not II, apparently. (In a blatant attempt to direct the conversation back to my proposed three-tier idea.) Except... if a sorcerer does do the wizard's equivalent of spell research, would you grant the spell as an "extra" or simply as one of their normal spells learned (via the table)?


bitter lily wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

It's not just wishes, it's other spells with expensive components, like resurrection (ancient gold), restoration, stoneskin (old) and yes wish (great wyrm gold dragon) just for examples.

Some monsters have the eschew materials feat, some do not. With or without the feat, I can't imagine that it's a good idea to let monsters cast spells without needing the expensive components, if only because that gives players another route to getting access to them.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Are we? In my mind, they need a pouch to carry their expensive components, and because they don't actually have the eschew materials feat, they need to carry normal material components as well.


_Ozy_ wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
Hey, we're in agreement!
Are we? In my mind, they need a pouch to carry their expensive components, and because they don't actually have the eschew materials feat, they need to carry normal material components as well.

I prefer to celebrate the victories of debate than to mourn the defeats. You hadn't pointed out the disagreement about the trivial components, so I was happy to overlook it. In any case, this does seem to be a matter of to each their own. I'm sorry I brought it up.

{No, I have to ask. I can't stop myself from typing this, I can't: Just how big a spell pouch does a gargantuan dragon -- with gargantuan fingers -- need? And where do they put it in flight?}

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always kinda figured that magical creatures are injesting the material components and storing them in some sort of spell component layer of fat...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

:) Sorry, it's my argumentative side ruining our celebration.

As far as the answers to your questions, I have none. I think in reality, most people, myself included, would probably ignore such details while running the game. But if an intrepid player asks 'Hey, where are the components for the stoneskin spell we all saw the dragon cast?', I sure would like to give him a reasonable answer.


_Ozy_ wrote:

:) Sorry, it's my argumentative side ruining our celebration.

As far as the answers to your questions, I have none. I think in reality, most people, myself included, would probably ignore such details while running the game. But if an intrepid player asks 'Hey, where are the components for the stoneskin spell we all saw the dragon cast?', I sure would like to give him a reasonable answer.

I believe in reasonable answers such as "Are you going to grill the dragon on it's casting methods, or is there something else you'd like to do before he breathes on you again?"


Weirdo wrote:


(If someone was interested in playing a healing focused celestial sorcerer I'm almost inclined to go in the opposite direction and say that they cast arcane spells from the cleric/oracle list with a handful of appropriate spells from the sorc/wiz list added, mostly abjuration or spells associated with a specific outsider like fire spells for someone with a peri ancestor.)

If someone wants to play a healing focused spontaneous caster, I'd gently suggest oracle. If they want arcane casting, Id bring up the possiblity of witch, in particular the hedge witch archetype with the Healing patron.


I always figured the dragons big ass pile of gold it slept on was its component pouch and the reason why it didn't need eschew materials feat


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

:) Sorry, it's my argumentative side ruining our celebration.

As far as the answers to your questions, I have none. I think in reality, most people, myself included, would probably ignore such details while running the game. But if an intrepid player asks 'Hey, where are the components for the stoneskin spell we all saw the dragon cast?', I sure would like to give him a reasonable answer.

I believe in reasonable answers such as "Are you going to grill the dragon on it's casting methods, or is there something else you'd like to do before he breathes on you again?"

And the response is "Are you houseruling dragons right now or will you just answer a simple question so I can sunder its pouch?"


Sundakan wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

:) Sorry, it's my argumentative side ruining our celebration.

As far as the answers to your questions, I have none. I think in reality, most people, myself included, would probably ignore such details while running the game. But if an intrepid player asks 'Hey, where are the components for the stoneskin spell we all saw the dragon cast?', I sure would like to give him a reasonable answer.

I believe in reasonable answers such as "Are you going to grill the dragon on it's casting methods, or is there something else you'd like to do before he breathes on you again?"
And the response is "Are you houseruling dragons right now or will you just answer a simple question so I can sunder its pouch?"

If you're insisting that dragons use spell pouches, than you're the one who's houseruling as that's not part of their monster entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not how rules work. Dragons cast spells, the general rules for casting requires components. The general rules for dragons also don't say "They can be killed", and yet lo and behold they can.

It's a very reasonable houserule since it's borne of an oversight, but a "reasonable answer" to a very sensible question is not a fancy way of saying "I refuse to answer your question". That fits neither the definition of reasonable, or even ANSWER.

Your reasonable answer should either be "It's right here" or "It doesn't have one, dragons don't need it".


Are we sure that Dragons don't keep spell components safely tucked away in an auxiliary stomach, nearby the one that generates their breath weapon?

Shadow Lodge

bitter lily wrote:
So Weirdo, you'd go with my I & III, but not II, apparently. (In a blatant attempt to direct the conversation back to my proposed three-tier idea.)

Almost, except that your 'I' indicates that all thematic spells are automatically allowed to be taken as spells known. In contrast, once I've decided that a spell is thematic I would then decide whether to allow it automatically or with some cost. The cost would be determined in a dialogue with the player based on the spell, the character concept, whether it's one spell or several, and balance within the specific party. (Dialogue is my preferred way to sort out homebrew and other GM discretion issues during character creation.) And I'm not making a judgment based on whether the spell is on any arcane list anywhere, but whether it's similar to other spells on the sorcerer list. I'm not going to give a player an easier time learning Cure Light Wounds than Divine Power just because CLW is on the bard and witch lists. Healing in general is not on the sorc list so it's going to take some cost even if it is thematic for a particular bloodline.

So I would allow a fire bloodline sorcerer to learn blistering invective or a fey bloodline sorcerer to learn plant growth as if they were on the sorc list, assuming they weren't stepping on the toes of another party member. (Battlefield control spells like black tentacles are common on the sorc list and entangle is a fey bloodline spell, which makes plant growth an extension of what the character could already do.)

A celestial or gold draconic sorcerer in a party that's low on healing could pick up CLW fairly cheap - for example we could write a tutor into their backstory and note that said tutor expects a later service (plot hook).

If they want access to a broader array of typically-divine spells they'll need to quest for it and make offerings to a celestial/draconic tutor.

bitter lily wrote:
Except... if a sorcerer does do the wizard's equivalent of spell research, would you grant the spell as an "extra" or simply as one of their normal spells learned (via the table)?

Normal spells learned via the table. If you want extra spells known, there's a feat for that.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
(If someone was interested in playing a healing focused celestial sorcerer I'm almost inclined to go in the opposite direction and say that they cast arcane spells from the cleric/oracle list with a handful of appropriate spells from the sorc/wiz list added, mostly abjuration or spells associated with a specific outsider like fire spells for someone with a peri ancestor.)
If someone wants to play a healing focused spontaneous caster, I'd gently suggest oracle. If they want arcane casting, Id bring up the possiblity of witch, in particular the hedge witch archetype with the Healing patron.

That's fine. My group has a fairly open policy towards homebrew so while I'd suggest oracle or healing witch first I'm not opposed to fiddling with sorcerer if the player is keen.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Are we sure that Dragons don't keep spell components safely tucked away in an auxiliary stomach, nearby the one that generates their breath weapon?

"No, the dragon isn't gagging himself to show disdain for you, he's reaching into his secondary stomach to manipulate spell components."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Are we sure that Dragons don't keep spell components safely tucked away in an auxiliary stomach, nearby the one that generates their breath weapon?

I prefer to think the components are caught under nails or wedged under scales, but thats always possible.


You have to be able to manipulate material components, so if they're inaccessible to the dragon grabbing them with a free claw they aren't useable and the spell fails.

Sovereign Court

I'm totally on board with dragons getting an amped-up form of Eschew Materials. Dragons as the original source of magic and all that, fine with me.

51 to 100 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can sorcerers learn non-S / W spells? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.