So while DMing a campaign, a player of mine figured that they'd play a Sorcerer; because they are all powerful or something like that.
So looking over his char sheet everything seemed to be in order until I checked his spell list and found several spells that shouldn't have been there. Which I had him take off of his sheet and replace with legal spells.
What do I consider legal spells for a Sorc? Any spell found on the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CORE book.
There is a rule written into the Sorcerer's spell entry that reads as thus:
"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study."
A common spell is translated as any spell found in the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CRB.
This rule was made to balance out the Sorcerer and Wizard class: Sorcerer can cast more spells per day and don't need to prepare them ahead of time while the Wizard who studies magic has a deeper understanding of how it works and essentially makes the new magic as they gain levels.
I also translate this rule to mean that if a Sorcerer found a spell book with non-core spells in it and studied it, they would then be allowed to gain the non-core spell as a new known spell, once they gained a level.
To help my player out, because he was quiet distraught, is there anything that someone can SHOW me through a link or by being answered by one of the creators themselves where this is not the case, and how they feel about the rule in general, and if there isn't a change in the rule I might become a little more flexible and give him access to an additional book to draw spells from.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have literally never heard about that house rule before. It seems exceedingly limiting and seriously skews it in favor of wizards over sorcerers. I'm pretty sure that by "unusual spells", the designers mean something like rare cantrips which are explicitly stated to only be accessible through uncovering some deep secrets and probably any spells that you, the DM, come up with.
RAW, any spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list (like this one) except for the rare ones are fair game if you allow the books they are from. But allowing wizards access to those books, but not sorcerers honestly just seems unfair. Wizards already have the advantage of being able to know an unlimited number of spells and preparing them according to whatever might be needed on that particular day. Sorcerers do not have that luxury and are way less versatile.
There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that non-CRB spells are "unusual". It's just more spells, that's it.
Now there's a spell called blood money, which is causing havoc with a lot of games (whether some agree it's a problem for them or not), there's been numerous discussions about it. Recently I just learned (and I'll admit I don't have the sourcebook myself) that that spell is apparently only found in one place, the spellbook of the Runelord of Greed in a specific adventure. Apparently is meant to be a unique reward for those who play the campaign and succeed.
I have never heard of that spell, but looking at it, yeah, that seems incredibly overpowered. But from the opening post, it seems like Archmic would allow wizards to take any spells on the Sorcerer/Wizard list on level-up, but does not allow that for Sorcerers and I find that to be a very odd restriction which in no way addresses the legitimate issue you've brought up.
So, I shall revise my statement about spell lists. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that the spells that are simply listed with no further comment on how one can acquire it are intended to be accessible to everyone. That would include at least all the books from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (PRG) series (excepting, of course, the spells that are specifically stated to mostly be for members of certain races). I'm reasonably certain that the same applies to spells in the Pathfinder Player Companion (PPC) books, although you could probably argue about Pathfinder Campaign Setting (PCS) books. I agree that spells from Adventure Paths should probably not be allowed to be taken by everyone.Heck, if you want to restrict casters to just CRB spells, that's fine. But restricting only spontaneous casters while letting the inherently versatile prepared casters run rampant only widens the gap between them.
|
So while DMing a campaign, a player of mine figured that they'd play a Sorcerer; because they are all powerful or something like that.
So looking over his char sheet everything seemed to be in order until I checked his spell list and found several spells that shouldn't have been there. Which I had him take off of his sheet and replace with legal spells.What do I consider legal spells for a Sorc? Any spell found on the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CORE book.
There is a rule written into the Sorcerer's spell entry that reads as thus:"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study."
Have you read the entry in the Magic Section for Arcane Spells? They address the "unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study" bit.
Basically, the Sorcerer has the same access to spells as the wizard in terms of what they can legally cast and acquire. They also gain bonus known bloodline spells, as per their bloodline. At GM discretion, they can also learn new spells that they encounter (like ones the GM makes up for their setting) or the sorcerer can even create their own custom spells. These GM discretion spells would still count against the Sorcerer limit on spells known.
I will note that the spells per day is a bit of a misgnomer. The Wizard, with Arcane Bonded Object and a specialized school, can cast the same number of top level spells per day as the sorcerer.
The advantage of the sorcerer, mainly, is found in that the sorcerer doesn't require preparation of spells, which has many circumstancal advantages. They can also add metamagic feats as they cast a spell (at an increase in casting time).
The advantage of the wizard is in their wide spell selection due to not being required to "know" the spells they prepare. They still need the spells written in their spellbook, but they can copy spells into the spellbook in a mostly effortless capacity. Regarding metamagic feats, the wizard does not recieve an increase in casting time, but they do need to prepare them as metamagic modified spells in advance, and they can't remove the feat from the spell if the modified spell is sub-optimal against the new opponent (like that Merciful Spell feat vs constructs).
I don't see it as odd at all seeing as how a wizard must do the following: keep all spells in a book that can be lost or destroyed forcing them to recollect their spells, get 4 spell slots per day of any given spell, must spend time every day after resting preparing their spells to include adding effects from metamagic which means getting their rest interrupted or their study time interrupted keeps them from being able to cast spells at all until they can find time to sit down and study, and his class abilities are literally just a few feats, a familiar, cantrips, and scribe scroll...
While a sorcerers only real restriction on their spells is the limited number they are allowed to know at anyone time. This seems much more balancing and fair between the two classes.
Note that no other class has the "common spells" part written into their spell descriptions.
Also, I never said he couldn't learn spells outside the core, because using your own words RAW states that he can learn other spells, however it states that he has to study them to be able to gain them by spending time like a wizard and learning to understand the magic involved. But, starting a fresh char I don't believe most if any sorcerers would take the time to study something they'll developed naturally.
Also, it's not a house rule. Pathfinder was made to be backwards compatible with 3.5, now before you dismiss this statement off hand, the developers themselves have stated this to include James Jacob in his defense of the campaign settings clerics needing to have a god to cast spells.
The wording in the core book, which is the second time I've quoted this source, for the sorcerer is almost an exact carbon copy of the 3.5 entry of sorcerer only you have to.look at slightly older versions to find the rest of the rule which is written as such; "an uncommon spell is any spell not found in this book". Which is easily translated into the core book when applied to pathfinder.
Which is why I was asking for a SOURCE or ERRATA that I can get clarification on the rules for the sorcerer. Because, it seems pretty clear to me, and the other players who played 3.5 and 3.0 before that this is a pretty well known rule. This last session was the first time anyone had played together and the one player was the only one new to gaming.
The example you showed isn't an uncommon spell, it's a unique spell, as in it was never intended to enter normal play.
Sorcerers already have limited spells know.
The line you refer to wasn't meant to prevent sorcerers from having access to the spells that came in supplemental books.
I think you're in the wrong.
To expand on why, you're assuming that just because the spells aren't in the core rule book that it makes them not-common spells.
I would greatly disagree. It's not ever defined what common or uncommon spells, with a few exceptions being obvious. Like blood-money. It's from a specific AP (Rise of the Rune Lords) and was created by Karzoug. As such, it simply shouldn't be available to PCs unless they are playing ROTRL and find it.
I guess what confuses me is this. Open up any book after the CRB. Like, say, the APG. It has lots of spells. They aren't listed as things like 'wizard 1'. No, they're listed as 'sorcerer/wizard 1'. They're on both classes spell lists. Using this logic, the sorcerer still can't learn those spells, despite being on his spell list, without some form of exposure...yet these are spells in the main campaign line.
Ask yourself this, is there any reason besides your perception of balance to limit it in this way?
If the answer is yes please tell us what they are so we can try understand them as well.
Otherwise, if the only reason is balance then you are barking up the wrong tree. The most abuse able spells are in the core book. Snow cone wish machines can be made using only the core book.
The best advice I can give you is to have a look at the spells your player chose, and decide if they are rare or not, based on the content of the spell. Ignore what book it is from but see if its use would be common in your world.
I am glad you are not as bad as other gms which pick their players spells known for them
Both sides of the issue are right and wrong.
Common / uncommon / rare spells is a line created by the GM. Unless you are playing in PFS, the GM has the final say over where the line is drawn.
The OP's statement that, "A common spell is translated as any spell found in the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CRB," and "This rule was made to balance out the Sorcerer and Wizard class," are only opinion as there is no rule anywhere that defines the line.
You are free to set the house rule however you like, but you should also be considerate to your players, who have purchased books they want to use, and also to the fact that this is a game that is meant to be fun for everyone. How does so heavily restricting the spell list add to your setting? You will need to consider that...
If you want anecdotal evidence of the intent that the sorcerer is free to pick from non-CRB spells any time they like, then just look to the PFS rules where Paizo has gone above and beyond in attempting to make the game played in a standard way by everyone. The source material list freely opens up the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
You can limit content to CRB only, but be aware half of the broken options of entire Pathfinder is located exactly there. Ok, 'half' might be exaggerated, but CRB contains so much legacy content, from times where balance was a second-rated concern at best. All the books afterwards did put more emphasis on it (to various degrees of success), so the density of broken spells became much lower.
If I were a powergamer, eager to get the most out of a wizard / sorcerer, I would first grumble because of your decision. But then I'd realize you actually made my powergaming easier - now I don't have to dig through all these long lists, just through the Core spells. Which I know better than the newer ones, anyway.
And I wouldn't worry too much about a sorcerer. A level 5 wizard probably comes up with fly and haste. A sorcerer will need till level 6 to get one of these gamechangers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it as odd at all seeing as how a wizard must do the following: keep all spells in a book that can be lost or destroyed forcing them to recollect their spells, get 4 spell slots per day of any given spell, must spend time every day after resting preparing their spells to include adding effects from metamagic which means getting their rest interrupted or their study time interrupted keeps them from being able to cast spells at all until they can find time to sit down and study, and his class abilities are literally just a few feats, a familiar, cantrips, and scribe scroll...
While a sorcerers only real restriction on their spells is the limited number they are allowed to know at anyone time. This seems much more balancing and fair between the two classes.
Even when you play by the normal rules (I'd be surprised if anyone but you interprets sorcerers that way) the wizard is generally considered to be more powerful overall than the sorcerer.
The weaknesses of the wizard (spellbook can be destroyed if you don't keep a backup, preparation could be interrupted) almost never arise in actual play unless the GM is really trying to make trouble for the character.
The wizard gets spells one level quicker. That's a really big advantage, and it helps overcome the number of spells per day issue:
Level 5 specialist wizard with bonded object and 20 Int:
Spells per day:
Level 1: 6 (3 base, 1 from specialisation, 2 from stat)
Level 2: 4 (2 base, 1 from specialisation, 1 from stat)
Level 3: 4 (1 base, 1 from specialisation, 1 from stat, 1 from bonded object)
Total: 14
Level 5 sorcerer with 20 Cha:
Spells per day:
Level 1: 8 (6 base, 2 from stat)
Level 2: 5 (4 base, 1 from stat)
Total: 13
The level 5 wizard can cast prepare Fireball, Haste and Fly and then use whichever is needed for the situation. The level 6 sorcerer can pick one and has to hope it won't turn out to be useless. By level 7 the sorcerer finally gets a choice of level 3 spells... but by then the wizard is on to level 4 spells.
On top of that, the wizard can change their spells easily to those that are likely to be needed on the current adventure, making them far more flexible. A spell like 'Remove Curse' isn't something a sorcerer is likely to take, because it doesn't come up often enough to be justify using one of your precious spells known. A wizard can leave a spell slot open or prepare it the next day.
The wording in the core book, which is the second time I've quoted this source, for the sorcerer is almost an exact carbon copy of the 3.5 entry of sorcerer only you have to look at slightly older versions to find the rest of the rule which is written as such; "an uncommon spell is any spell not found in this book". Which is easily translated into the core book when applied to pathfinder.
As far as I can tell "an uncommon spell is any spell not found in this book" didn't apply in D&D 3.5 either - I'm not sure what version that line was in (3.0?), but presumably it was removed on purpose. Perhaps they wanted to be able to sell books with new spells to players of sorcerers?
Would an official Paizo sorcerer stat-block that has them knowing non-Core spells count as a source?
|
|
This seems to be a modified version of the 3.0 sorcerer rules. The 3.0 sorcerer reads "these spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer and wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual arcane spell (one not on the sorcerer spell list) could select that spell as one of his new spells for achieving a new level".
The actual 3.0 rule would let you learn bard or other arcane spells if you had a scroll.
Are Clerics in your game limited to CRB only for spells?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ridiculous made up nonesense homebrew in the name of balance when Wizards are already stronger than Sorcerers. Yeah I can see why your player was distraught. If a GM pulled this on me I'd quit the campaign before it started.
I'm honestly so blown away by the insanity of this rule. When a Spell is in the Wizard/Sorc list its because Wizards/Sorcs have them as spells they can take. Not common =/= Not core.
not because Wizards have them as spells they can take and that Sorcerers would like to have but can't.
This isn't even balancing, most of the broken spells are core, its just a way of making sorcs less variable and more boring than wizards.
Such a strict, pointless anti fun interpretation of the rules. I'm impressed.
I can't quite figure out the point of the OP or purpose of this thread. Shouldn't this be in the homebrew section? My GM had a similar 'crb spells only' rule. It didn't last a single session.
My take on Sorceress: downsides = -, upsides = +, even comparison 0
- Sorceresses have fewer spells known of any level, unless the GM is a real miser about copying spells from NPCs for the wizards.
Find a scroll: wizard adds to his book, and uses it forever [plus gets a one-time consumable];
sorceress finds it, only to be stuck with a consumable [or forced to save it until level-up, and then maybe only on a level evenly divisible by 4 to retrain a prior spell known, or buy a ring/page of spell knowledge].
+ Sorceresses get more casting of those few spells they do know; if you are fighting incorporeal creatures, a ton of magic missiles does come in handy. If you want Haste in every fight, or to cast Fly or Invisibility on the party, a bunch of castings is awesome [though you are delayed at least 1 level in getting there per my next point]
- Sorceresses are a level behind the max spell level available to a wizard 50% of the time
[it stinks to only have level 1 spells for levels 1, 2, and 3; and only get 2nd when you reach 4th].
- Bloodline spells come late
[the wizard gets identify at 1st, and invisibility at 3rd, and dispel magic at 5th;
the sorceress of Arcane Bloodline gets them at 3rd, 5th, and 7th - really ridiculous...].
- Having to be human or 1/2 human to select the FCB for extra spells known, and it still lags even the sorceress's top level spell known, which lags the wizard's top spell level 50% of the time
[to even use the FCB to get a 1st level spell known, you have to have 2nd level spells = be 4th level].
- Wizards make much better crafters/knowledge experts, using Intelligence as their casting stat lets them be better at crafting/knowledge.
0 Metamagic casting requires the sorceress to give up her move action, and increases the spell level,
to where they are unable to cast that level spell 50% of the time compared to the wizard in higher level spells.
[and most feats come at odd levels, in time for a wizard to enjoy a new spell level;
the sorceress has to wait until the next [even] level to get that same spell cast with the same metamagic].
0 Metamagic casting requires the wizard to memorize the spell in a higher slot, or to use the 1 slot of that level that he left open
0 Wizards get scribe scroll and make good crafters with good knowledge checks;
0 Sorceresses get eschew materials [which means nothing in comparison when wizards rarely lose their books] with good face skills.
0 How a wizard imitates a sorceress until level 8: buy a wand of the spell you want to cast repeatedly [useable 50 times].
0 How a sorceress imitates a wizard: buy a bunch of scrolls of different spells to get versatility [useable once each].
From a good post some time ago:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kxos?Sorcerers-versus-Wizards#8
So here's the question: has anyone experimented with different spell lists for wizards and sorcerers, and what effect has it had on game balance? I've thought about it for a while, but before try it I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences with this idea.
It's a lot of work, and all it ends in the end is that the sorcerer is more boring, because you deny them everything you deem "complex". So in addition to only knowing a certain number of spells, the spell selection sucks.
Take a look at the warmage from 3.5e. They know their whole spell list. Still, they're boring as spellcasters go, because they can only blast this, blast that, "I only kill enemies". *Yawn*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take on Sorceress: downsides = -, upsides = +, even comparison 0
- Sorceresses have fewer spells known of any level, unless the GM is a real miser about copying spells from NPCs for the wizards.
Find a scroll: wizard adds to his book, and uses it forever [plus gets a one-time consumable]
Not quite true, actually. Coping a scroll into a spellbook destroys the scroll.
As for looking for a rule
I'm pretty sure their isn't one, but I think this should clear things up
Advanced Players Guides Spell list
look how its the Sorcerer/Wizard Spell list, not the wizard spell list.
Or you could look how pathfinder society works - hint - not how you think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is certainly a houserule. Whether it is good or bad isn't as important as the fact that you should have clearly explained it to your players before they made characters.
Your player is right to be upset, you messed up even if it was unintentional.
At the very least, if you aren't willing to give up this rule, you should certainly offer them the opportunity to build a different character with your houserules in mind.
Tbere is nothing in the rules that says CRB stuff is any more common than non-CRB stuff. This isn't Diablo 2 or Magic. Spells don't have text colors or holographic foil or first edition seals to indicate their rarity.
Thus, I can say that "common" only means spells that have the word "common" in it, and my silly interpretation would be no more or less valid than yours.
|
|
The weaknesses of the wizard (spellbook can be destroyed if you don't keep a backup, preparation could be interrupted) almost never arise in actual play unless the GM is really trying to make trouble for the character.
Have you never run with a GM that does the classic prison plot hook? Party wakes up in prison with all their gear taken from them (It's normally found in the "evidence locker" somewhere near the exit of the prison). Players may be all in one cell, or may each start in their own isolated cell. It's a classic and can be fun.
Wizard doesn't have their spellbook, Clerics have no holy symbols, and so forth. Can be fun to see what you can improvise in such a situation. A sorcerer doesn't really need to improvise, in such a situaion.
And the Wizard's spellbook is a class feature, no different than a holy symbol or animal companion. The GM doesn't need to be "making trouble" if they attempt harm (or take) your spellbook, holy symbol, or companion. It would depend on the NPC, of course, as they should have in-game reasons for doing so.
Thats not really a fair comparison, a Druid is still a druid with all their druidy powers in their AC dies.
If a Wizard loses his book he retains a couple school powers and other than that he is basically a super intelligent commoner.
Its like making a Paladin fall. The Prison type plot hooks work because the books isn't destroyed in most cases but rather usually held as evidence or something similar.
Also Clerics can get their holy symbol tattoo'd onto their hand or something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question isn't whether the wizard spellbook is a weakness of the class that sorcerers don't have. It is, but it's a minor one, and that's not the point.
The question is whether Archmic is inventing rules. He is. There's nothing in the rules that says sorcerers don't have access to all the same spells as wizards. Period. It doesn't matter if they're from the Core Rulebook or some other source. The rules are the same for spell access by both classes.
Now if he wants to limit PCs to Core only material for some reason, that's his decision as GM. But trying to argue that the rules say that the class is somehow limited based on what book a spell was published in is rubbish. Everyone who has responded to this thread has agreed on that point. And since this is the rules subforum, that's all there is to say here.
Have you never run with a GM that does the classic prison plot hook? Party wakes up in prison with all their gear taken from them (It's normally found in the "evidence locker" somewhere near the exit of the prison). Players may be all in one cell, or may each start in their own isolated cell. It's a classic and can be fun.
If this happens often enough that you need a rule to balance this, then you are far too reliant on one trick. What do you do to monks? Kineticists? Brawlers?
This also doesn't harm wizards that much unless they are captured after a long adventuring day where they cast most of their spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats not really a fair comparison, a Druid is still a druid with all their druidy powers in their AC dies.
If a Wizard loses his book he retains a couple school powers and other than that he is basically a super intelligent commoner.
A wizard doesn't lose prepared spells if they lose their spell book. They just can't prepare new spells. So a wizard without a spellbook would need to "ration" their prepared spells. Though without a spell component pouch, rationed spells may still be uncastable.
And there are feats for a wizard to cast spells from memory. There are feats to ignore component costs. There are items and spells to help you better protect your spellbook. If, as GM, my NPC is able to effortlessly steal your spellbook, due to the player putting no effort in it's protection, that doesn't really seem like it would be fair to be upset with the GM.
I suggested that the GM could reasonably have an NPC *attempt* to harm/take your spellbook, animal companion, familar, and so forth. With a reasonable amount of caution, the party should have no issues protecting item/creature class features.
I would only accept the stripped-of-gear situation if I knew about it before making my character. There are so many ways to make a character completely reliant on a certain item and completely useless without it. Due to my love of weird mechanics interactions, I'm not unlikely to be running one at a given instant.
That would depend on how you got to prison. If I started the adventure like that, I'd tell you in advance.
If I had an NPC that managed to incapacitate, but not kill, the party, I might have you wake up in prison, and you'd get no warning. Then again, said NPC could easily have used coup de grace on your unconscious selves, so I really think waking up in prison, is very generous and not something I should need to justify to the players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, I can say that "common" only means spells that have the word "common" in it, and my silly interpretation would be no more or less valid than yours.
Ah, so that's why they call them "Commonal Spells".
Have you never run with a GM that does the classic prison plot hook? Party wakes up in prison with all their gear taken from them (It's normally found in the "evidence locker" somewhere near the exit of the prison). Players may be all in one cell, or may each start in their own isolated cell. It's a classic and can be fun.
Never.
And if it is fun, then it's presumably a lot less fun with a party of sorcerers and monks who will still have access to all their abilities.
A wizard doesn't lose prepared spells if they lose their spell book. They just can't prepare new spells. So a wizard without a spellbook would need to "ration" their prepared spells. Though without a spell component pouch, rationed spells may still be uncastable.
So you're assuming that the wizard and party are getting captured when the wizard has his spells prepared, I'd assume it was much more likely to happen at the start or end of a day when they had none or few.
And there are feats for a wizard to cast spells from memory. There are feats to ignore component costs. There are items and spells to help you better protect your spellbook. If, as GM, my NPC is able to effortlessly steal your spellbook, due to the player putting no effort in it's protection, that doesn't really seem like it would be fair to be upset with the GM.
so you think wizards should spend their feats and abilities trying to prevent their DM from screwing them over?
I mean unless you're trying to build a paranoid person this doesn't sound like a particularly interesting or fun build, not to mention I don't think it would even occur to most people to take those options or even that they exist.And hey now where did all this effortlessly stuff come from? Who said effortless? Players can try and protect their stuff and have it taken without having to devote all their build to it.
invisibly sneaking into someone's camp and searching their bag for a book isn't really that high an investment to steal and traveling wizards spells at the end of the day so he won't have any prepped in the morning.
I suggested that the GM could reasonably have an NPC *attempt* to harm/take your spellbook, animal companion, familar, and so forth. With a reasonable amount of caution, the party should have no issues protecting item/creature class features.
Unless the player has a very specific, none standard build taking someones spell books is quite a lot more severe than any of those other options. If the familiar is the familiar of a witch thats slightly less true but I'm pretty sure they can get theirs back in like 24 hours so even they are better off than a wizards whose book gets destroyed.
To those of you denying that it was in 3.5, grab a PHB open it to page 54 and read the right set of text; if I could post a picture on here I would, and you'll find that you are wrong.
And can a developer please answer this question, as the most useful answers have come from people referencing actual material. I'm not interested in opinions and should never have asked for one.
So, DEVELOPERS what constitutes a common and uncommon spell in BASE GAME; I'm not interested in PFS or any premade setting. Just the ruling on that obscure line in the CORE BOOK.
Thank you for your time and thank you to the people who ACTUALLY troed to help by giving me references to look at.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So while DMing
"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study."
A common spell is translated as any spell found in the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CRB.
This rule was made to balance
Actually you have reversed that in your memory.
In 3.5, sorcerers had access to all wizard spells from all legal sources. So if a wizard can put it in their spell book, a sorcerer can learn it in your world.
As explained in the 2000’s, that line means essentially that sorcerers can more easily learn spells that may not be things a wizard can learn. Or learn things without spell research. Say like a GM saying “you are a sorcerer with gold dragon bloodline, so you can learn any spell a gold dragon can cast including their cleric spells.”
Pathfinder took away most of the dragons having sorcerer levels, turning it into spell like abilities. But the flavor of the rule could be maintained by allowing sorcerers to learn spells of the spell likes of their bloodline source.
Your ruling is a house rule, that is the opposite of the intent of the rule you used to build your house rule.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, DEVELOPERS what constitutes a common and uncommon spell in BASE GAME;
When a developer comments, too many times people say “that’s not the rules.” So it’s rare that a dev comments now and it’s unlikely to happen. Someone could pull up the dragon magazine article from like dragon 308 (from memory but might be 318) and quote some of the explaination to you.
To those of you denying that it was in 3.5, grab a PHB open it to page 54 and read the right set of text; if I could post a picture on here I would, and you'll find that you are wrong.
So, I just got hold of a copy of the 3.5 PHB (first printing) and it says:
"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level."Not sure why that's not here where the 'for example' line has been deleted... (except for the fact that it's on the internet and not in a book, and it doubtless wasn't intended to prevent sorcerers from learning sorcerer/wizard spells from other books, but those books didn't exist at the time...)
|
|
To those of you denying that it was in 3.5, grab a PHB open it to page 54 and read the right set of text; if I could post a picture on here I would, and you'll find that you are wrong.
And can a developer please answer this question, as the most useful answers have come from people referencing actual material. I'm not interested in opinions and should never have asked for one.
So, DEVELOPERS what constitutes a common and uncommon spell in BASE GAME; I'm not interested in PFS or any premade setting. Just the ruling on that obscure line in the CORE BOOK.
Thank you for your time and thank you to the people who ACTUALLY troed to help by giving me references to look at.
Ok, you just walked into my pet peeve. I've been playing Pathfinder since 2011, but I've never even seen the 3.5 books. Pathfinder is its own game. There are plenty of us who never played 3.5. Personally, I skipped from playing 1st edition back in the day to checking out 4th and Pathfinder when I returned to table top gaming 20 years later. If you want to discuss 3.5, I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has a forum somewhere for that. This is the Pathfinder rules forum.
And the concept of spell commonality doesn't exist in Pathfinder. You're not likely to get a response from Paizo on any subject, let alone something that isn't even part of their game.
Everyone in this thread has given you the same answer. There's nothing in the Core Rulebook to support any other interpretation. Get over it.</rant>
Also, it's not a house rule. Pathfinder was made to be backwards compatible with 3.5
Compatible, yes. The same, no. There are many instances of PF rules not being identical to 3.5 rules.
You will notice that line is not found in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
The line in only reads, "These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study."
You have defined what "common" means to you. Another (most even) DMs would say anything on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is "common." Or just use the line to ban specific spells they don't want in their campaign (Blood Money leaps to mind).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Makes up rule
People tell him he made up a rule
Gets mad that people didn't show him where it says his rule is made up
how can we? they don't print a list of wrong interpretations we can pull out for when someone gets something wrong. You just interpreted the text wrong based on how you thought it would work thanks to a legacy issue.
We've shown you how paizo's own online resource lists books from outside the core on the Sorc/Wizard spell list. If its on the list with the classes name on it, the class can take the spell, that is pretty obvious.
We've pointed you to PFS which runs the rules consistently and correctly and publishes their own home-brewed rules when they do something outside the norm.
There are 45 comments on you thread the only person in it who thinks you're right is you. Maybe take the hint?
So while DMing a campaign, a player of mine figured that they'd play a Sorcerer; because they are all powerful or something like that.
So looking over his char sheet everything seemed to be in order until I checked his spell list and found several spells that shouldn't have been there. Which I had him take off of his sheet and replace with legal spells.What do I consider legal spells for a Sorc? Any spell found on the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CORE book.
There is a rule written into the Sorcerer's spell entry that reads as thus:"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study."
A common spell is translated as any spell found in the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the CRB.
So by that logic anything not printed by the CRB should be rare and unusual. All classes not CRB should be not be common. All items. All weapons and armor. Or if those aren't "rare and unusual" then spells introduced into the game from those books aren't either, unless explicitly stated.
"Rare and unusual spells" should be a campaign/world building thing that the GM sets up. If, in your world, teleporting magics doesn't work (or extremely limited by range) then make teleport spells exceptionally rare or remove them from the game. But the players should be aware of this, since their characters live in said world where teleportation isn't a thing.
This rule was made to balance out the Sorcerer and Wizard class: Sorcerer can cast more spells per day and don't need to prepare them ahead of time while the Wizard who studies magic has a deeper understanding of how it works and essentially makes the new magic as they gain levels.
I also translate this rule to mean that if a Sorcerer found a spell book with non-core spells in it and studied it, they would then be allowed to gain the non-core spell as a new known spell, once they gained a level.
To help my player out, because he was quiet distraught, is there anything that someone can SHOW me through a link or by being answered by one of the creators themselves where this is not the case, and how they feel about the rule in general, and if there isn't a change in the rule I might become a little more flexible and give him access to an additional book to draw spells from.
He's distraught because you're giving him a limit that you are not giving to any of the other players. Either they're all core-only or they all aren't. It isn't fair nor fun otherwise.
Do you limit Cleric to just CRB spells?
EDIT: Flagged, should be in Homebrew section not Rules.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not sure why that's not here where the 'for example' line has been deleted...
The examples were not in the SRD.
If you want to discuss 3.5, I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has a forum somewhere for that
Sadly they all got purged, I had thousands of posts on forums.wizards.com that got intentionally deleted when they cut to 4e.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're assuming that the wizard and party are getting captured when the wizard has his spells prepared, I'd assume it was much more likely to happen at the start or end of a day when they had none or few.
No, I'm assuming that the wizard is not wasting spells at the end of the day just because they assume that they'll have spells the next morning. If you don't need to use your spells, save them. But, worst case, they'll have no spells aside from cantrips and they'll have to improvise. Wizards have skills. They don't need to just rely on spells.
And, furthermore, a default wizard does have a single spell they can prepare from memory, Read Magic. Not an amazing spell, but as GM, I can assume that the wizard has that spell prepared.
so you think wizards should spend their feats and abilities trying to prevent their DM from screwing them over?
I mean unless you're trying to build a paranoid person this doesn't sound like a particularly interesting or fun build, not to mention I don't think it would even occur to most people to take those options or even that they exist.
A wizard, just like any other class, should at least consider investing in feats/skills/spells, that protect their weak points. A spellbook is a weak point for the wizard, just like their low HP, any arcane bonded items, and their spell component pouches.
Just like, for a paladin, their weak points are their Code, their Alignment, their Holy Symbol, and their Deity.
If trying to be a fair GM, I can't really ignore the wizard weak points, but expect Paladins to adhere to their code.
And hey now where did all this effortlessly stuff come from? Who said effortless? Players can try and protect their stuff and have it taken without having to devote all their build to it.
invisibly sneaking into someone's camp and searching their bag for a book isn't really that high an investment to steal and traveling wizards spells at the end of the day so he won't have any prepped in the morning.
Well, if your camp is protected so poorly that an invisible creature can sneak in and take things (or attack players), that's not really a wizard specific problem, that's an issue for the whole party. Spellbooks are the least of your issues, in that case.
A simple 1st level Alarm spell is a great way to protect the entire campsite from invisible creatures. Doesn't make them visible, but does wake up the party to the presence of an intruder.
And, for balance between the Sorcerer and the Wizard, Alarm is one of those spells that the Sorcerer can't really afford because it wastes spells known. That wide spell selection is exactly what makes the wizard shine, and this is exactly the sort of spell that only a wizard can realistically employ.
As an aside, that 25gp "Guard Dog" from the CRB is a great way to protect a campsite from invisible creatures, since it has scent. Train it to make noise when it encounters unfamiliar smells and you have an invisibility detector. Encircling a camp with caltrops, would also work pretty well, especially a low levels. A party doesn't need a spell like Alarm to protect themselves, it's just an added advantage.