what does "You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels." mean

[Altaica]

I'm a linguist(not professional but it is my bonus feat for being autistic) so let me try to dumb this down enough that you won't get confuzed.

If they mean that you get your bonus feats at lvl1 and they your only able to use then when you you can add a spell of they lvl to your known spell list what are the odds, given paizo's track record, of them saying:
"No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. "

For example, a 1st-level wizard with 18 Intelligence has (according to table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells) 1 bonus spell at spell levels 1, 2, and 3. However, he can only use the 1st-level bonus spell because as a 1st-level wizard he only has access to 1st-level spells (his class-based number of 2nd- and 3rd-level spells per day are "—", meaning "no access to spells of this level"). As soon as he becomes a 3rd-level wizard, he gains access to his 2nd-level spell slots and can use that bonus 2nd-level spell slot from his high Intelligence, and likewise for 3rd-level spells and bonus spells at wizard level 5.

Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels."

[Java Man]

Are you asking a question? Or just lecturing all of us? Or was the post you are answering deleted?

[Arcaian]

Altaica, you've asked this question in several different threads already. The rules are clear on this question. You've been given the correct answer many times, and are even quoting the sources that answer the question here. I will be blunt here, as you have previously stated you struggle with interpreting hidden meanings in communication. To summarize:

From this FAQ, and quoted in your OP, here is the most definitive one:

FAQ on the Core Rulebook wrote:

Bonus Spells from a High Ability Score: Can I use these even if my spellcasting class level isn't high enough to give me access to those spell levels?

No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. "

For example, a 1st-level wizard with 18 Intelligence has (according to table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells) 1 bonus spell at spell levels 1, 2, and 3. However, he can only use the 1st-level bonus spell because as a 1st-level wizard he only has access to 1st-level spells (his class-based number of 2nd- and 3rd-level spells per day are "—", meaning "no access to spells of this level"). As soon as he becomes a 3rd-level wizard, he gains access to his 2nd-level spell slots and can use that bonus 2nd-level spell slot from his high Intelligence, and likewise for 3rd-level spells and bonus spells at wizard level 5.

Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels.

In addition to this FAQ, the Core Rulebook on page 16 lays this out:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook, page 16 wrote:

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. See individual class descriptions for additional details.

Finally, Sean K Reynolds - who was instrumental in the development of the Core Rulebook - provided a ruling on this, in addition to the FAQ, available here:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Seriously, folks:

1) The Abilities and Spellcasters section on page 16 says, "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

2) The wizard section on Spells on page 78 says, "A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Wizard." Other spellcasting classes have a similar entry.

So even if your Int is 44 (giving you bonus spells of level 1 through 9), you can't use those bonus spell slots until your class level is such that your class table grants you access to the appropriate level of spells.

Think of Table 1-3 as having a + in front of all those numerical values, so the 16-17 row's bonus spells per day columns read as follows:

0 —, 1st +1, 2nd +1, 3rd +1, 4th —, 5th —, 6th —, 7th —, 8th —, 9th —

If the listing in your class table is a number, you can add the value from Table 1-3 to that to see how many total spells of that level you can cast per day. If the listing is NOT a number (i.e., it's a dash), you can't add the value from Table 1-3 because you can't add numbers to dashes.

It's two rules in the book that work together, and it's clear unless you're deliberately trying to read it in a way that gives you something you shouldn't get.

It is overwhelmingly proven that you do not gain bonus spells of spell levels you are unable to cast. This is also backed up by all Paizo published content, in which bonus spells of all statted entities are limited to spell levels they may cast. There is no possible argument over the rules here. A 1st level oracle with 18 charisma gains a single bonus 1st level spell, and no bonus 2nd, 3rd, or 4th level spells. You have been informed of this, and are aware of these definitive rulings. What is the purpose of this thread?

[Meirril]

As everybody above (including OP) has pointed out, you don't get bonus spells for spell levels you don't have access for. A few classes give you access to a spell level but no ability to cast spells of that level. To designate this the Spells Per Day chart says "0" spells, not a "-". An example of this is the Paladin Spells Per Day chart which gives zero spells per day. Zero being a number means you can add your bonus spells for those levels.

This is the reason the wording for bonus spells is quite complicated, because these 0 cases exist. Though to be honest, if they didn't exist the wording wouldn't be drastically different.

[jbadams]

Agreed with the above. The rule in question is quite clear and has been well clarified.

I'm not sure what your question (if there is one) is?

[Cavall]

I do not see the reason for this post, nor the insults towards everyone who reads it. Nothing needs to ever be "dumbed down" for the rules forum.

Therefore, flagging. Please remove for site and existence.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Altaica wrote:

I'm a linguist(not professional but it is my bonus feat for being autistic) so let me try to dumb this down enough that you won't get confuzed.

I am not sure if it was a stylistic choice to write confused with a z (though the same applies to a lot of your recent posts), but claiming to "dumb it down" for the forum is not constructive.

As others have done for you, it is usually good form to explain that most of what you are sharing is a FAQ, including the question and ideally provide a link to the source.

[MrCharisma]

Altaica wrote:

For example, a 1st-level wizard with 18 Intelligence has <snip> 1 bonus spell at spell levels 1, 2, and 3 and 4. However, he can only use the 1st-level bonus spell because <snip> he only has access to 1st-level spells (his class-based number of 2nd- and 3rd-level spells per day are "—", meaning "no access to spells of this level").

As soon as he becomes a 3rd-level wizard, he gains access to his 2nd-level spell slots and can use that bonus 2nd-level spell slot from his high Intelligence. Likewise for 3rd-level spells and bonus spells at wizard level 5.

Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels.

This is correct.

I edited things to make it a little easier to read. Mostly rearranging, with a little deleting. I added the bold part.

[TriOmegaZero]

Cross-posting from another thread to clarify for people.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Despite having the relevant rule explained multiple times and being pointed to the FAQ that explicitly says it does not work that way, the player has been arguing in many threads that his reading is "one possible interpretation" and that therefore he should be allowed to use those bonus spell slots even if everyone else is following the rules and FAQ.

A more accurate way to say it is that an individual with cognative rigidity has interpreted the rules one way and is distressed by neurotypical people (people without autism) having a different interpretation. He has percieved that the neurotypical insistance on the community accepted interpretation (invluding author confirmation of the community interpretation) is a bias against non-neurotypical people.

His difficulty navigating conventional wisdom and fluidity in language has led him to conclude Paizo's products are poorly written.

He is now searching (and sharing) for anything that supports his view and will reject anything that does not fit his view, not intentionally but because that is how his brain works.

Engage gently and with the understanding that it is extremely difficult to change a person with cognitive rigidity's mind.

While we are all accustomed to arguments where one side refuses to admit errors, please keep in mind that in this case the OP is nearly unable to change their stance.

[Warped Savant]

Altaica wrote:

I'm a linguist

You have done nothing to demonstrate that and a fair number of things to show the opposite.

Altaica wrote:

so let me try to dumb this down enough that you won't get confuzed.

No need for insults on the board. And you spelled "confused" wrong.

Altaica wrote:

If they mean that you get your bonus feats at lvl1 and they your only able to use then when you you can add a spell of they lvl to your known spell list

What? Yes, you get feats at level 1. You've mixed up a few words so I'm having a problem trying to understand what you're saying... You can take feats at level 1 and some feats can affect spells. But some feats can only affect spells that are higher than level 1 spells. So if you can only cast level 1 spells then taking feats that only affect higher level spells is useless.

Altaica wrote:

what are the odds, given paizo's track record

What track record? Or are you trying to imply again that Paizo doesn't know what they're doing? (As you've done in a few threads already?) Again, no need for insults. If you don't like how the company does things you don't need to participate in the games that they produce.

Altaica wrote:

"No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

For example, a 1st-level wizard with 18 Intelligence has (according to table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells) 1 bonus spell at spell levels 1, 2, and 3. However, he can only use the 1st-level bonus spell because as a 1st-level wizard he only has access to 1st-level spells (his class-based number of 2nd- and 3rd-level spells per day are "—", meaning "no access to spells of this level"). As soon as he becomes a 3rd-level wizard, he gains access to his 2nd-level spell slots and can use that bonus 2nd-level spell slot from his high Intelligence, and likewise for 3rd-level spells and bonus spells at wizard level 5.

Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels."

Yes, that response to an FAQ is correct.

What are you trying ask? Because it looks like you're asking if Paizo would say something that they said. You even copied what they said word for word.

[SorrySleeping]

Even if an 18 int Wizard could cast 4th level spells, he has no way to do so.

He starts at level 1 with three spells, all of which have to be first level. A 2nd level scroll is 150gp, which is more than the Wizard's maximum starting gold of 120gp, also the 40gp needed to put that scroll into your spellbook.

[willuwontu]

SorrySleeping wrote:

Even if an 18 int Wizard could cast 4th level spells, he has no way to do so.

He starts at level 1 with three spells, all of which have to be first level. A 2nd level scroll is 150gp, which is more than the Wizard's maximum starting gold of 120gp, also the 40gp needed to put that scroll into your spellbook.

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, does not change the rules at all. An 18 wis cleric can't cast level 4 spells at level 1, despite having access to their whole spell list.

2. You don't always have to buy scrolls, you can also copy for ink costs + fee equal to half ink costs. (Or no fee).

3. They could have rich parents.

[Meirril]

SorrySleeping wrote:

Even if an 18 int Wizard could cast 4th level spells, he has no way to do so.

He starts at level 1 with three spells, all of which have to be first level. A 2nd level scroll is 150gp, which is more than the Wizard's maximum starting gold of 120gp, also the 40gp needed to put that scroll into your spellbook.

If that 1st level wizard could cast 4th level spells, they could cast Maxamized or other metamagic versions immediately. Even without metamagic they could just fill the higher level slots with 1st level spells.

And when they became 2nd level Wizards they could add 2 spells of any level they can cast for free. Imagine a 2nd level wizard retraining their 1st level feat for Spell Specialization: Fireball to rain 4d6 fireballs twice a day.

So lets not even entertain economic considerations, getting access to bonus spells before you are allowed to is just bad.

[PossibleCabbage]

Well, I guess I understand now why PF2 dropped "you get bonus spells for being smart/wise/charismatic".

It's clear the intent is "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots" but there might not be a non-awkward way to say this.

[SorrySleeping]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, I guess I understand now why PF2 dropped "you get bonus spells for being smart/wise/charismatic".

It's clear the intent is "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots" but there might not be a non-awkward way to say this.

IIRC, one of the early blog post previews mentioned it. Something about allowing places a different choice in builds and stuff. Most Wizards are high Int with above average dex and bad Str/Cha due to how they work. Isn't so in PF2.

[Xenocrat]

SorrySleeping wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, I guess I understand now why PF2 dropped "you get bonus spells for being smart/wise/charismatic".

It's clear the intent is "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots" but there might not be a non-awkward way to say this.

IIRC, one of the early blog post previews mentioned it. Something about allowing places a different choice in builds and stuff. Most Wizards are high Int with above average dex and bad Str/Cha due to how they work. Isn't so in PF2.

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

[PossibleCabbage]

Xenocrat wrote:

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

I mean, if you wanted to play a PF2 Wizard with 12 Int and never cast a spell with a DC on it, the only reason that wouldn't work is the comparatively lower number of class feats you get (which would invariably go to whatever dedication you were taking.)

[Sebastian Hirsch]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

I mean, if you wanted to play a PF2 Wizard with 12 Int and never cast a spell with a DC on it, the only reason that wouldn't work is the comparatively lower number of class feats you get (which would invariably go to whatever dedication you were taking.)

Chances are that this aspect will have been addressed in some form or another, but honestly, if people really want to play it why stop them *.

*Whether or not that might be an issue in Organized Play and might need to be addressed is another issue. I kinda hope not to see threads about Wizards with a negative INT mod for the first couple of years.

[Xenocrat]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

I mean, if you wanted to play a PF2 Wizard with 12 Int and never cast a spell with a DC on it, the only reason that wouldn't work is the comparatively lower number of class feats you get (which would invariably go to whatever dedication you were taking.)

Yes, all those no save spells in the playtest definitely represent a valuable contribution to an adventuring party.

[ShadowcatX]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

I mean, if you wanted to play a PF2 Wizard with 12 Int and never cast a spell with a DC on it, the only reason that wouldn't work is the comparatively lower number of class feats you get (which would invariably go to whatever dedication you were taking.)

You can do that in Pathfinder 1 as well.

[Cavall]

Some 9th level casters are ok to not max out the main casting stat. Druid, for one. If your focus is on wild shapes and not casting that is.

I do not personally see wizards in that concept but there may be a few more martial archetypes and options that lean that way.

[SorrySleeping]

ShadowcatX wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

I mean, if you wanted to play a PF2 Wizard with 12 Int and never cast a spell with a DC on it, the only reason that wouldn't work is the comparatively lower number of class feats you get (which would invariably go to whatever dedication you were taking.)

You can do that in Pathfinder 1 as well.

PF1 Wizards require 19 int to cast 9th level spells. PF2 Wizards do not.

[Sara Marie]

Altaica wrote:

so let me try to dumb this down enough that you won't get confuzed.

Altaica, phrases like this give your posts an aggressive, insulting tone and it is not acceptable behavior for our forums.

Everyone else, it would be great if you could not dog-pile, and if you are frustrated by a thread or subject, you are welcome to stop responding to it.

[TriOmegaZero]

SorrySleeping wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Ah, yes, all the low int and low dex wizard builds during the playtest.

I mean, if you wanted to play a PF2 Wizard with 12 Int and never cast a spell with a DC on it, the only reason that wouldn't work is the comparatively lower number of class feats you get (which would invariably go to whatever dedication you were taking.)

You can do that in Pathfinder 1 as well.

PF1 Wizards require 19 int to cast 9th level spells. PF2 Wizards do not.

You can easily start with a 12 Int and build up if you want. Not recommended, but possible. Even if you don't get to 19 Int you can still prepare lower level spells in your 9th level slots.

[JiaYou]

Altaica wrote:

Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels."

Yep, you got it! Your class only grants the ability to CAST new spells at certain levels. I mentioned in your previous thread that a wizard can have a 9th level spell written in his/her spellbook but cannot cast it until he has a caster level of at least 17 (through either the Wizard class or Wizard class + prestige classes which advance Wizard casting).

If you're looking to get those fun bonus spells early, believe me, we all do. Playing a low-level wizard can be a drag, which is why I'm glad Pathfinder gave low-level wizards various abilities which make them more interesting or useful.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Sara Marie wrote:

Altaica wrote:

so let me try to dumb this down enough that you won't get confuzed.

Altaica, phrases like this give your posts an aggressive, insulting tone and it is not acceptable behavior for our forums.

Everyone else, it would be great if you could not dog-pile, and if you are frustrated by a thread or subject, you are welcome to stop responding to it.

Is it still okay to point out to prospective posters that the issue has been discussed elsewhere so they don't waste time, collecting and formatting a well-reasoned argument that tries to answer the question?

[Cavall]

I am no linguist but I never SAW a question

[blahpers]

Intentional or not, this thread is bait. Flagged.

[MrCharisma]

blahpers wrote:

Intentional or not, this thread is bait. Flagged.

I think Altaica really doesn't understand the rules. (S)he hasn't been very tactful or very accepting of the community's opinions, but the question seems genuine.

Also since we've already had a community manager involved in this thread I asssume they would have already removed/locked it if they were going to.

@Altaica: I really think the best thing to do is to show your GM everything that's been discussed here - including all rules and FAQ's - and get a ruling. Nothing we say or do has any effect on the games you play, but if you're really looking for a ruling then full disclosure is the best way to get one.

@Everyone else: The reason Altaica is having so much trouble with this is that his/her GM has made a ruling on this and agrees with Altaica. The GM in question is also the local PFS VC, so this is a semi-official ruling. My advice would be to just leave this thread and let them sort out their own game.

[R. Sweet]

MrCharisma wrote:

@Everyone else: The reason Altaica is having so much trouble with this is that his/her GM has made a ruling on this and agrees with Altaica. The GM in question is also the local PFS VC, so this is a semi-official ruling. My advice would be to just leave this thread and let them sort out their own game.

Good point, but I have questions. I DMed/PMed the original poster. Not gotten a response yet, but I'd prefer not to poke this bear anymore than I have to.

[MrCharisma]

R. Sweet wrote:

Good point, but I have questions.

Questions for us or for the OP?

You could always start a new thread if you want to keep this from getting agressive again?

[R. Sweet]

MrCharisma wrote:

R. Sweet wrote:

Good point, but I have questions.

Questions for us or for the OP?

You could always start a new thread if you want to keep this from getting agressive again?

Questions for the OP. Haven't gotten response yet. Methinks it's best to let this die a quietly.

[Cavall]

/gets a pillow while the thread sleeps

"Shhh. Shhhhhhhh. Itll be over soon"

[Altaica]

willuwontu wrote:

SorrySleeping wrote:

Even if an 18 int Wizard could cast 4th level spells, he has no way to do so.

He starts at level 1 with three spells, all of which have to be first level. A 2nd level scroll is 150gp, which is more than the Wizard's maximum starting gold of 120gp, also the 40gp needed to put that scroll into your spellbook.

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, does not change the rules at all. An 18 wis cleric can't cast level 4 spells at level 1, despite having access to their whole spell list.

Side question: on what page(s) does it discuss wizards adding spells to their spellbook? I can only find the ones they get when they level up.

I read it as Wizards don't have access to higher level spells so that is why they didn't get the bonus spell slots.

I only played 2e so was use to low level clerics haven't world braking powers at low level with the only balance considerations being combat.

The only reason I've read about why my interpretation isn't playable is on aesthetics; that it doesn't make high level clerics appear as powerful.

I have yet to be given an example of a divine spell that would be game braking if they got their bonus slots at first level. on another forum someone said it's unfair to give clierics access to high level spells because of their bonus spell slots but not give high Int wizard access to cloudkill.

So I'm not the only one that read it as Clerics having ACCESS to higher levels spell but only kept from casting them by not having the spell slots.

[Meirril]

Altaica wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

SorrySleeping wrote:

Even if an 18 int Wizard could cast 4th level spells, he has no way to do so.

He starts at level 1 with three spells, all of which have to be first level. A 2nd level scroll is 150gp, which is more than the Wizard's maximum starting gold of 120gp, also the 40gp needed to put that scroll into your spellbook.

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, does not change the rules at all. An 18 wis cleric can't cast level 4 spells at level 1, despite having access to their whole spell list.

Side question: on what page(s) does it discuss wizards adding spells to their spellbook? I can only find the ones they get when they level up.

I read it as Wizards don't have access to higher level spells so that is why they didn't get the bonus spell slots.

Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook is in the core rule book under Magic. This is also the section where they discuss the difference between a prepared caster (Wizard, Cleric, most actually) and a spontaneous caster (sorcerer, oracle, bard, others).

Wizards get free spells when they level up, but as long as they have a copy of a spell they can learn it. Its possible to have a spell known long before you can cast it. All you need is a good spellcraft and some luck with dice.

[Altaica]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, I guess I understand now why PF2 dropped "you get bonus spells for being smart/wise/charismatic".

It's clear the intent is "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots" but there might not be a non-awkward way to say this.

What's so clunky about "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots"?

[Val'bryn2]

Okay, I'm going to try. Page 16 of the Core Rulebook tells you that you have to both have a high enough caster level and high enough ability score to cast spells. With me so far? The class description tells you what level you need to be to cast spells of a certain level, since it varies based on type of spellcaster. Now, the little tick marks in most of the columns indicates you cannot cast spells of that level yet. Bonus spells don't matter. Checking paladin, since the key for the spell table doesn't change between classes. It's all based on can you cast? Yes or no. If yes, how many? Note that getting 0 spells of a level is different from not getting spells, because a 0 can have other numbers added to it. No spells means you don't have the power to do it, even if you may have the technical know-how. Do you understand now? Sorry if it seems a little insulting, but you've been insulting everyone else by claiming you need to dumb it down for us.

What do you think it means when they say " In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells or use spell slots of a given spell level"?

[Jeff Morse]

Altaica wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

SorrySleeping wrote:

So I'm not the only one that read it as Clerics having ACCESS to higher levels spell but only kept from casting them by not having the spell slots.

you are correct, you are not the first and will not be the last. That is why they felt the FAQ was needed. Sometimes, some of us read a rule a certain way that is not the intended way it is meant or written. hope we all was able to help and you continue to enjoy PFS.

[Hels]

Altaica,
I understand your frustration at this rule and how it is interpreted. However, FAQs are set up to help clarify rulings. One person may interpret a rule different to another. The developers and writers do not have foresight to see how their writing may be interpreted by different people. All that can be done is to find the best way at the time. This is true of FAQs too.

With regards to Pathfinder Society Play- the rules and guidelines in play are to allow for a level playing field across the world. This is, in my opinion, its main strength, and the reason I enjoy it.

For example; if you were to use your interpretations of the spell slot rules in your games, but then to travel to another location and play with another GM, it would be upsetting to be told that you could not play your character at that GMs table. I am sure a conversation would follow (I know personally, I would be upset in that situation), but with society being for a number of players, and not just one PC, it is needed to protect all players- lets say there are a further 5 players around the table- an in depth conversation between one player and one GM would mean no one can play- the time set for the game would be eaten up by a long discussion. That would be upsetting for the other players.

However, referring to people as 'Idiots' is offensive. People are not trying to offend you, and a lot of very lovely GMs and Players have gone quite far to provide rules, rulings, FAQs, and other methods of delivering information. To call people names for trying to help is not fair, nor is it productive- it is only likely to upset or irritate individuals on this forum, and therefore make any other answers to the original post in a similar vein. And that way, we end up in name calling, and nothing at all productive. Please show posters the same respect they are showing you by trying to find different methods to provide information.

From your posts, it sounds like a home brew game would be better suited. You appear set on your interpretation of the rules, and that is fine in home brews. I understand that the only local games are society play. Have you looked at setting up your own group of non society play? There are a number of facebook pages dedicated to Pathfinder, as well as other channels online and offline. You may find players in your area in a similar situation, wanting to play a home brew game. This would allow you to play Pathfinder, but would stop the unease you feel with society.

I am sure that if you asked on these forums, you may find other players too.

Pathfinder and RPGs in general are a great for many therapeutic uses. I have a number of friends who run groups in the UK for this very reason.

[Meirril]

Altaica wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, I guess I understand now why PF2 dropped "you get bonus spells for being smart/wise/charismatic".

It's clear the intent is "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots" but there might not be a non-awkward way to say this.

What's so clunky about "once you get nth level spell slots, with a sufficient Int/Wis/Cha you get bonus spell slots"?

The main argument against it is that Memorization casters do not get spell slots. Only spontaneous casters use them. While I realize that you use the term 'spell slots' regardless of whether that particular class gets spell slots or not it is not technically correct. And the way Pathfinder refers to them is technically correct.

The best kind of correct.