Can sorcerers learn non-S / W spells?


Rules Questions

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

I will say, my digression on my own topic is producing some great quotes.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
"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?"

I adore this, even though (sadly) Sundakan is right that the player deserves a more straightforward answer.

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

And to think I thought that the typical gyrations of a human caster were too undignified for a dragon! This image is (even more sadly) going to be the lasting one from this discussion, for me.


Weirdo wrote:
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.

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.

Noted -- and thank you for answering. (The quote got to be too long, but I also noted your answer re: adding extra spells known, that you'd want them to take the Expanded Arcana feat -- with thanks.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bitter lily wrote:

I will say, my digression on my own topic is producing some great quotes.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
"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?"

I adore this, even though (sadly) Sundakan is right that the player deserves a more straightforward answer.

I was very straightforward with my answer. I told him that we don't need to be as pedantic with rules for monsters as we do for player characters. That doesn't mean that every dragon I make that can have 9th level spells is going to have wish on it's spell list. Only very very special dragons... mythic ones will ever have that spell in the campaigns I run.

The rules of spellcasting are designed to curb player actions, not to limit the GM. The GM can use modify or simply discard whatever mechanics they like. The experience of the players as to whether they enjoy the final product or leave in disgust are the final judge on what that GM does. I don't intend to run campaigns where dragons are player characters, and I do believe that as the signature monsters of dungeons and dragons, GMs should feel to use the bestiary entries as a starting point.. not a cage.


There are times when "Oh, oh, oh, it's maaagic..." is the appropriate response.

...and to cleanse your palette from the confectionary sounds of the 70's,

Sovereign Court

I'd rather say "it's magic" than force my majestic dragon to carry a handbug full smelly trinkets.

If the players insist that the dragon needs a pouch, then it'll also come outfitted with armor and have every item slot stuffed with something that would otherwise be lying in its hoard. This "dragons don't do equipment" thing cuts both ways.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
... "dragons don't do equipment" ...

Cadrilkasta doesn't know what you are talking about.

Scarab Sages

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 think this is the best way to handle it.

That way, if the GM doesn't want to use a spell the dragon knows, they can handicap them by saying their component "stomache" is out of that material. And it's totally up to the GM on whether the spell components are useable from a dead dragon, or if they are too digested (in case you don't want your players getting a ton of a certain material as loot).


As people have already pointed out, spell components need to be MANIPULATED to cast spells. A stomach pouch for spell components is no more helpful for a dragon than a pouch buried deep inside a backpack is useful to a Wizard.


I'm not going to rule out dragons being able to manipulate objects inside of at least one of their stomachs.

No one said you had to manipulate them with your hands, a valve, a complex reflex action, or a pseudopod could certainly suffice.

Scarab Sages

Sundakan wrote:
As people have already pointed out, spell components need to be MANIPULATED to cast spells. A stomach pouch for spell components is no more helpful for a dragon than a pouch buried deep inside a backpack is useful to a Wizard.

With a still spell, they don't have fish out components when casting, right?

Seems like it would kinda defeat the point of a still spell, if the wizard is reaching for their spell component pouch each time they cast it.

They still require the components, but I kinda felt that it's more about them getting consumed, plus role playing, than it is about being able to fish out the components while spell casting. Or are you saying that if a spell requires a pinch of something, but they grab less than a pinch, it fails?


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
As people have already pointed out, spell components need to be MANIPULATED to cast spells. A stomach pouch for spell components is no more helpful for a dragon than a pouch buried deep inside a backpack is useful to a Wizard.

With a still spell, they don't have fish out components when casting, right?

Seems like it would kinda defeat the point of a still spell, if the wizard is reaching for their spell component pouch each time they cast it.

They still require the components, but I kinda felt that it's more about them getting consumed, plus role playing, than it is about being able to fish out the components while spell casting. Or are you saying that if a spell requires a pinch of something, but they grab less than a pinch, it fails?

Still Spell only removes the need for somatic components. It does absolutely nothing regarding material components.

Scarab Sages

Jeraa wrote:
Still Spell only removes the need for somatic components. It does absolutely nothing regarding material components.

Right, but the somatic components are supposed to be the physical motions required to cast the spell. The whole point of the Still Spell feat is to eliminate the motions, and subsequently, the hands, required to cast a spell.

If you are requiring players to "Manipulate" the spell components (which is not described in CRB rules for spell components), does seem like you'd be requiring 2-handed spell casters (and 1-handed still spell casters).

Your setting your rules, I suppose, but I'm not seeing CRB reasons that a player would need to actually be fishing out the spell components during the casting, especially during the casting of a still spell. The Components are still required and consumed, of course, but this doesn't require physical motions for a still spell.


From the CRB: "To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell."

I thought I was wrong for a second but the reason you probably missed it (and I had trouble re-finding it) is that it's under "Choosing a spell" rather than "Components" in the Magic section.


So in other words, Still Spell is useless if you need material components, since you have to move to use the components.
This applies even to sorcerers or others with Eschew Materials for focuses and other expensive components.


Yep. Although, there are quite a few V and S spells that you could then cast while paralyzed with Still. The Feat is still pretty solid, it's jut not as powerful as some might think.

Scarab Sages

Sundakan wrote:

From the CRB: "To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell."

I thought I was wrong for a second but the reason you probably missed it (and I had trouble re-finding it) is that it's under "Choosing a spell" rather than "Components" in the Magic section.

Hmmm... hate how it's all in 3 places in the CRB.

Does the caster need to manipulate it, or just be able to manipulate it? That would be difference between the spell components being handy, and somewhere in your backpack, but wouldn't actually require motions.

Seems very strange that a "STILL" spell would require moving. That does seem like the entire point and function of the feat.

Plus the description for somatic spells says that a free hand is required. So if the spell lacks a somatic component, but has material requirements, how many hands are required to cast? I'm under the impression that still spells are cast without hands, and normal spells require only a single hand, unless otherwise noted.


This topic reminded me... I own a physical model of a dragon I used recently against my players. Said dragon has a messenger bag some wands sticking out of it (and I assume spell components buried deeper within). Ironically, that dragon wasn't old enough to have an effective sorcerer level yet.

My two cents are that Dragons need components to cast their sorcerer spells, just like any other arcane spellcaster when casting a spell with material components. However, as far as I know, there's nothing stopping a Dragon from taking Eschew Materials. It's not like that 26 HD Ancient Gold Dragon is hurting for feats. He could easily drop Alertness, Extend Spell, Iron Will, or one of the four Improved Critical feats he took without really hurting his profile all that much.


thejeff wrote:

So in other words, Still Spell is useless if you need material components, since you have to move to use the components.

This applies even to sorcerers or others with Eschew Materials for focuses and other expensive components.

It isn't useless. It allows you to cast spells with somatic components while tied up (or using both hands for something), provided the spell doesn't have material or focus components.

It removes the chance for arcane spells to fail because of wearing armor - the arcane spell failure chance only applies to arcane spells with somatic components, not all arcane spells.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
My two cents are that Dragons need components to cast their sorcerer spells, just like any other arcane spellcaster when casting a spell with material components. However, as far as I know, there's nothing stopping a Dragon from taking Eschew Materials. It's not like that 26 HD Ancient Gold Dragon is hurting for feats. He could easily drop Alertness, Extend Spell, Iron Will, or one of the four Improved Critical feats he took without really hurting his profile all that much.

Sad as it is, Eschew Materials is really limited in terms of spell components it can emulate. False Focus is a much more practical feat, especially for high level casters. Plus, getting a holy symbol for a dragon is easy, as they can even be tattooed on.


Jeraa wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So in other words, Still Spell is useless if you need material components, since you have to move to use the components.

This applies even to sorcerers or others with Eschew Materials for focuses and other expensive components.

It isn't useless. It allows you to cast spells with somatic components while tied up (or using both hands for something), provided the spell doesn't have material or focus components.

It removes the chance for arcane spells to fail because of wearing armor - the arcane spell failure chance only applies to arcane spells with somatic components, not all arcane spells.

"useless if you need material components", as I said.

The armor thing is real, but fairly niche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has come up many times in the past, and it's actually rather straightforwards: manipulating the materials is part of the somatic component. By definition, manipulating the material component is a somatic action, and thus is part of the somatic component. That's why the rules don't say 'you need a hand free to manipulate materials'; it's part of the somatic. If that wasn't true, a character would need two free hands to cast a spell - one for the somatic component and one to manipulate materials.

So if something is allowing you to ignore the somatic component, it's allowing you to ignore the whole somatic component; it's saying "you no longer need to perform any movement with this spell", and manipulating materials is obviously a part of that.


All spells only require one free hand. Remember, you are taking 3-6 seconds (generally) to cast this spell, so there is time to make a gesture, say the magic words, and toss a pinch of bat guano at your opponents in succession rather than simultaneously.

@Bird: Um, no. Somatic and Material components are not the same thing. They are two separate components. Still only lets you ignore one of the two, Eschew Materials handles (mostly) the other. By that logic Still should make your spells Silent too because it prevents you from needing to move your lips to form sounds.


It is equally mysterious how the sorcerer can pull out the bat guano from their components pouch without looking, avoiding the butter, eyelashes, and small wooden archery targets that are in there as it is how the dragon manipulates its spell components, wherever they are.


BadBird wrote:

This has come up many times in the past, and it's actually rather straightforwards: manipulating the materials is part of the somatic component. By definition, manipulating the material component is a somatic action, and thus is part of the somatic component. That's why the rules don't say 'you need a hand free to manipulate materials'; it's part of the somatic. If that wasn't true, a character would need two free hands to cast a spell - one for the somatic component and one to manipulate materials.

So if something is allowing you to ignore the somatic component, it's allowing you to ignore the whole somatic component; it's saying "you no longer need to perform any movement with this spell", and manipulating materials is obviously a part of that.

So does that mean you don't need the materials? Or that somehow they get used directly out of your pouch? Or wherever else you're carrying them?


thejeff wrote:
Badbird wrote:
So if something is allowing you to ignore the somatic component, it's allowing you to ignore the whole somatic component; it's saying "you no longer need to perform any movement with this spell", and manipulating materials is obviously a part of that.
So does that mean you don't need the materials? Or that somehow they get used directly out of your pouch? Or wherever else you're carrying them?

Sure, why not? Is it too 'magical' that they're simply absorbed into the energy of the spell without manipulating them? Seems the most straightforward explanation of the whole thing to me.


Sundakan wrote:

All spells only require one free hand. Remember, you are taking 3-6 seconds (generally) to cast this spell, so there is time to make a gesture, say the magic words, and toss a pinch of bat guano at your opponents in succession rather than simultaneously.

@Bird: Um, no. Somatic and Material components are not the same thing. They are two separate components.

You're confusing having a material component with having to manipulate it. Material component = you need to possess X. Somatic component = you need to perform X actions. Performing some kind of action with your materials is somatic, by definition.


Not by the rules, no. Manipulating the components is part of the material component portion of a spell. This game does not always use the dictionary definition of words (see: 'Free hand').

Shadow Lodge

I feel like the discussion on material components could use its own thread at this point.

bitter lily wrote:
Noted -- and thank you for answering. (The quote got to be too long, but I also noted your answer re: adding extra spells known, that you'd want them to take the Expanded Arcana feat -- with thanks.)

Thank you for creating the topic. While I think that spell lists (and numbers of spells known) are important limitations on spellcasters' power, I also think that thematic spells are a good way to make casters diverse and interesting. Bloodline spells (and mystery spells, and domain spells) are the right idea, but really my preference would be to give these characters a narrower core spell list and make the thematic packages more extensive.


Sundakan wrote:
Not by the rules, no. Manipulating the components is part of the material component portion of a spell.

Where does it say that? People often make that assumption, but...

CRB Components: wrote:

Somatic (S)

A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

Material (M)

A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

The rules don't say that a material component requires a free hand, or that manipulating materials is part of the material component. Nothing of the sort.

The only time manipulating material components is mentioned, it's in passing, and it doesn't say that it's part of the material component of the spell there either:

CRB wrote:
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any).

So, typically, you have to be able to manipulate the materials; it doesn't actually say that's part of the material component. The logical conclusion - and logical in more than one way - is that motions of any kind are covered by Somatic - which is the definition of 'somatic' after all.

Considering the implications to things like Still Spell or the Arcane Duelist's Somatic Weapon ability, it's a little odd to hang on to the assumption that a material component requires it's own movement and/or free hand when they never say so.


It's also odd to assume that material and somatic components "cross the streams" on how they work when it's never said anywhere either. It's more logical to assume that verbal, somatic, and material components are each separate, distinct COMPONENTS of a spell and manipulation of one has no bearing on the others.

But Weirdo's right, make a new thread.


If manipulating the material component is considered to be part of the somatic component, what about spells with material components that do not have somatic components? Keen senses, for example. Or thoughtsense Has a material component that must be "manipulated", but no somatic component to do so.

So manipulating a material component can't be part of the somatic component.


Jeraa wrote:

If manipulating the material component is considered to be part of the somatic component, what about spells with material components that do not have somatic components? Keen senses, for example. Or thoughtsense Has a material component that must be "manipulated", but no somatic component to do so.

So manipulating a material component can't be part of the somatic component.

Or casting those particular spells don't involve doing anything with the material component.

Sundakan wrote:

It's also odd to assume that material and somatic components "cross the streams" on how they work when it's never said anywhere either. It's more logical to assume that verbal, somatic, and material components are each separate, distinct COMPONENTS of a spell and manipulation of one has no bearing on the others.

But Weirdo's right, make a new thread.

Well whatever; I don't really have a dog in this fight. For me, when the actual entry for Material Component in the CRB says absolutely nothing more than 'have the material', and nowhere else does it say 'this other thing is also required to fulfill the material component condition', then anything else looks like making up rules that aren't actually in the rules, based on assumptions of how things work.

Shadow Lodge

Well since we're still here I think I can resolve this:

Grappled wrote:
Casting Spells while Grappled/Grappling: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand.

When being Grappled, even without a somatic component you need to have the material component in hand.

There is no reason to assume that a caster would lose the ability to cast a stilled spell using a component in his backpack only if he is Grappled, so we should assume that this rule is applied generally.


As a GM I would require the dragon to have a spell component pouch. You might take away 2 or 3 spells, but he will likely full attack you, and make you pay for it, and with their CMD you might not sunder the pouch anyway.

Dragons when run well are dangerous enough without any rules exceptions.


Weirdo wrote:

Well since we're still here I think I can resolve this:

Grappled wrote:
Casting Spells while Grappled/Grappling: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand.

When being Grappled, even without a somatic component you need to have the material component in hand.

There is no reason to assume that a caster would lose the ability to cast a stilled spell using a component in his backpack only if he is Grappled, so we should assume that this rule is applied generally.

Good point... and rather bizarre. What's very odd about that is: "A pinned creature cannot move". So... you don't have to be able to move, but the component has to be 'in hand' already. Huh? You had to have it 'in hand' before you were pinned? How the f- does that work? Is "I take X material component 'in hand'" some kind of legit action? And how does having a component 'in hand' without being able to move then qualify as 'manipulating' it?

I'm not sure I'd say it's solved, so much as thrown into contradictions. The rules about being grappled suggest there's more to fulfilling a material component than what the rules specifically about fulfilling a material component require, and they even contradict the text about 'manipulating' a material component. Messy...

Scarab Sages

Weirdo wrote:

Well since we're still here I think I can resolve this:

Grappled wrote:
Casting Spells while Grappled/Grappling: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand.

When being Grappled, even without a somatic component you need to have the material component in hand.

There is no reason to assume that a caster would lose the ability to cast a stilled spell using a component in his backpack only if he is Grappled, so we should assume that this rule is applied generally.

I'm leaning towards the idea that the material components must be "able" to be manipulated for still spell, but aren't actually manipulated. So only components in hand if you are grappled, and only handy materials (like inside a conviently placed spell component pouch). In the backpack isn't handy enough to be considered "able" to manipulate the materials.


on dragons needing spell components:
lol, it's ludicrous. Dragon's don't need spell components. How do they cast spells? Ummm... *they're dragons*. There are rules for PCs and rules for monsters and mostly they do mesh. Monster rules are more simplistic as the GM is in control and they are support players.
see, that was easy!
I can easily support that argument with a historical reference stating that dragons have NEVER HAD SPELL COMPONENT POUCHES in the game(AD&D to present). Pathfinder uses the OGL and there have been no text changes. Thus Dragons (for this area) are still the same. QED.
Dragons have hoards and are soft targets (which is why they hide out a lot). Not much changed there either. Over the years(editions) dragon's melee combat routines/options have improved so that they are not such soft targets.
Thematically dragons are representative of magic and that is reflected in the game, much like fey are quixotic magical humanoids that reflect nature and magic and its mystery.

As a GM if I needed a low power dragon NPC with the party for various reasons, he might use spell components to reflect his weakened state. He probably would have a tiny hoard that fits in a magic item and be sensitive about the topic in general (it's a draconic embarrassment!).


So, once again, does this apply to expensive spell components for spells like stoneskin, restoration, wish?

If not, thank you very much. My dragon simulacrum will be quite useful.


_Ozy_ wrote:

So, once again, does this apply to expensive spell components for spells like stoneskin, restoration, wish?

If not, thank you very much. My dragon simulacrum will be quite useful.

Who cares even if they do? Efreets already do snowcone wish factories better since it's more economical to make a 10hd simulcrum than an 18hd one.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

So, once again, does this apply to expensive spell components for spells like stoneskin, restoration, wish?

If not, thank you very much. My dragon simulacrum will be quite useful.

Who cares even if they do? Efreets already do snowcone wish factories better since it's more economical to make a 10hd simulcrum than an 18hd one.

While many GMs may balk at giving you a wish factory, they can hardly complain when your simulacrum merely has access to 4th level spells, and can therefore slap stoneskin on your party free of charge. Or fix negative levels.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

So, once again, does this apply to expensive spell components for spells like stoneskin, restoration, wish?

If not, thank you very much. My dragon simulacrum will be quite useful.

Who cares even if they do? Efreets already do snowcone wish factories better since it's more economical to make a 10hd simulcrum than an 18hd one.
While many GMs may balk at giving you a wish factory, they can hardly complain when your simulacrum merely has access to 4th level spells, and can therefore slap stoneskin on your party free of charge. Or fix negative levels.

You're talking as if finding either of those in the bestiary already is hard to do. There's a pile of good celestials that are packing lesser, standard, and greater restoration as a spell likes and there's probably something with stoneskin and every other expensive spell under the sun somewhere that can be snowconed up. All of which are probably going to be more economical to whip up than the extra magic dragons since you need to have dragon capable of learning the desired spell as a sorceror spell while operating at half HD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Easy fix: Dragons are the essential essence of magic incarnate, and as such they have no need for pesky details liked "components".

Simulacrums of dragons, efreeti, outsiders or whatever are hollow imitations of life, devoid of any essential link to magic and any spellcasting they are able to do must be fully powered by the requisite materials.

I mean, it's either that, or blame the whole shtako on the midichlorians. <g>


Tarik Blackhands wrote:

You're talking as if finding either of those in the bestiary already is hard to do. There's a pile of good celestials that are packing lesser, standard, and greater restoration as a spell likes and there's probably something with stoneskin and every other expensive spell under the sun somewhere that can be snowconed up. All of which are probably going to be more economical to whip up than the extra magic dragons since you need to have dragon capable of learning the desired spell as a sorceror spell while operating at half HD.

*shrug* A general purpose spellcaster can be given pages of spell knowledge for any sorcerer spell, which in the long run is more economical than trying to patch together different SLAs from different creatures. Grab a silver dragon that has access to decent cleric spells as well, and voila.

That said, simulacrum is so nebulous that it's not clear you even would retain the powerful SLAs for any given creature.


_Ozy_ wrote:


*shrug* A general purpose spellcaster can be given pages of spell knowledge for any sorcerer spell, which in the long run is more economical than trying to patch together different SLAs from different creatures. Grab a silver dragon that has access to decent cleric spells as well, and voila.

That said, simulacrum is so nebulous that it's not clear you even would retain the powerful SLAs for any given creature.

Agreed on the last part. Besides, at the end of the day, pointing out that that material-less dragons would (further) break simulacrum is about as productive as pointing it that it would also break all dragon campaigns.

That said though, Paizo in general doesn't really seem to care about listing expensive material components carried by monsters in the bestiary in general, not just dragons (example: Ghaele Azatas have raise dead prepped as a cleric spell but no diamonds in their equipment to actually cast it). To me anyway, this all represents minutae that just doesn't matter for anyone at the end of the day. If the GM wants he can have dragons with giant spell pouches or have Azatas use Elysium to provide expensive components and that's his call, but really it just strikes me as busy work that at worst can be exploited by already exploitative abilities/spells and at best is ignored.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

So, once again, does this apply to expensive spell components for spells like stoneskin, restoration, wish?

If not, thank you very much. My dragon simulacrum will be quite useful.

Who cares even if they do? Efreets already do snowcone wish factories better since it's more economical to make a 10hd simulcrum than an 18hd one.

a simulacrum does not a dragon make

consult with your GM, as per simulacrum, to see what your illusionary dragon could do. Same for other creatures that could offer similar abilities.

Aspects of the game like this are left to the GM to fill in and it's been that way since the AD&D days.

Lantern Lodge

Don't bread and butter Sorcerers come with Eschew Materials? Why not extend to Dragons or any other sorcerous spellcaster if it is a concern.

$0.02.


twells wrote:

Don't bread and butter Sorcerers come with Eschew Materials? Why not extend to Dragons or any other sorcerous spellcaster if it is a concern.

$0.02.

1) And replace what feat? Or just give it to them as a bonus feat?

2) Eschew materials doesn't do anything for spells that need either a focus or expensive material components, so the dragon would still need a pouch for those spells.

101 to 147 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.