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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


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.


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?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.)

Silver Crusade

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.


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.

Liberty's Edge

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.


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.


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.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
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.


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.

Silver Crusade

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am no linguist but I never SAW a question


Intentional or not, this thread is bait. Flagged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Dark Archive

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.


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?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

/gets a pillow while the thread sleeps

"Shhh. Shhhhhhhh. Itll be over soon"


Homo sapiens’s environment of evolutionary adaptedness (a.k.a. EEA or “ancestral environment”) consisted of hunter-gatherer bands of at most 200 people, with no writing. All inherited knowledge was passed down by speech and memory.

In a world like that, all background knowledge is universal knowledge. All information not strictly private is public, period.

In the ancestral environment, you were unlikely to end up more than one inferential step away from anyone else. When you discover a new oasis, you don’t have to explain to your fellow tribe members what an oasis is, or why it’s a good idea to drink water, or how to walk. Only you know where the oasis lies; this is private knowledge. But everyone has the background to understand your description of the oasis, the concepts needed to think about water; this is universal knowledge. When you explain things in an ancestral environment, you almost never have to explain your concepts. At most you have to explain one new concept, not two or more simultaneously.

In the ancestral environment there were no abstract disciplines with vast bodies of carefully gathered evidence generalized into elegant theories transmitted by written books whose conclusions are a hundred inferential steps removed from universally shared background premises.

In the ancestral environment, anyone who says something with no obvious support is a liar or an idiot. You’re not likely to think, “Hey, maybe this person has well-supported background knowledge that no one in my band has even heard of,” because it was a reliable invariant of the ancestral environment that this didn’t happen.

Conversely, if you say something blatantly obvious and the other person doesn’t see it, they’re the idiot, or they’re being deliberately obstinate to annoy you.

And to top it off, if someone says something with no obvious support and expects you to believe it—acting all indignant when you don’t—then they must be crazy.

Combined with the illusion of transparency and self-anchoring (the tendency to model other minds as though the were slightly modified versions of oneself), I think this explains a lot about the legendary difficulty most scientists have in communicating with a lay audience—or even communicating with scientists from other disciplines. When I observe failures of explanation, I usually see the explainer taking one step back, when they need to take two or more steps back. Or listeners assume that things should be visible in one step, when they take two or more steps to explain. Both sides act as if they expect very short inferential distances from universal knowledge to any new knowledge.

A biologist, speaking to a physicist, can justify evolution by saying it is the simplest explanation. But not everyone on Earth has been inculcated with that legendary history of science, from Newton to Einstein, which invests the phrase “simplest explanation” with its awesome import: a Word of Power, spoken at the birth of theories and carved on their tombstones. To someone else, “But it’s the simplest explanation!” may sound like an interesting but hardly knockdown argument; it doesn’t feel like all that powerful a tool for comprehending office politics or fixing a broken car. Obviously the biologist is infatuated with their own ideas, too arrogant to be open to alternative explanations which sound just as plausible. (If it sounds plausible to me, it should sound plausible to any sane member of my band.)

And from the biologist’s perspective, they can understand how evolution might sound a little odd at first—but when someone rejects evolution even after the biologist explains that it’s the simplest explanation, well, it’s clear that nonscientists are just idiots and there’s no point in talking to them.

A clear argument has to lay out an inferential pathway, starting from what the audience already knows or accepts. If you don’t recurse far enough, you’re just talking to yourself.

If at any point you make a statement without obvious justification in arguments you’ve previously supported, the audience just thinks you’re crazy.

This also happens when you allow yourself to be seen visibly attaching greater weight to an argument than is justified in the eyes of the audience at that time. For example, talking as if you think “simpler explanation” is a knockdown argument for evolution (which it is), rather than a sorta-interesting idea (which it sounds like to someone who hasn’t been raised to revere Occam’s Razor).

Oh, and you’d better not drop any hints that you think you’re working a dozen inferential steps away from what the audience knows, or that you think you have special background knowledge not available to them. The audience doesn’t know anything about an evolutionary-psychological argument for a cognitive bias to underestimate inferential distances leading to traffic jams in communication. They’ll just think you’re condescending.

And if you think you can explain the concept of “systematically underestimated inferential distances” briefly, in just a few words, I’ve got some sad news for you . . .

Cavall wrote:
I do not see the reason for this post, nor the insults towards everyone who reads it.

Since you going to feel insulted because I challenge you omniscient no matter how flowery the language I use. I just say it bluntly.

That's because your an idiot.

I say that not to insult you but to get you to realize you're blissfully ignorant in the hope that you'll decide to do something about it.

Unlike you guys who are insulting me by saying that no one in their right mind would interpret the rules the way I did.

Cavall wrote:
Nothing needs to ever be "dumbed down" for the rules forum.

I would like to hear you're explanation for why no one sees the reason for this post, nor the insults towards everyone who reads it.

Cavall wrote:
Therefore, flagging. Please remove for site and existence.

https://www.readthesequences.com/Pretending-To-Be-Wise TL;dr just banning us doesn't sovle the problem, it just makes it someone else's problem.

Liberty's Edge

Altaica wrote:
banning us doesn't sovle the problem, it just makes it someone else's problem.

See, you're assuming the rules are the problem. They're not. The rule at issue here has been a rule since June of 00. Probably nearly as long, or longer, than you have been alive and many of us have been using it,correctly, ever since then. Neither the rule, nor it's language, is the problem.

Likewise, the problem isn't your unwillingness to accept the rule. Not everyone can process things the same thing the same way. Some people add 2+2 and get 5, they're not right, no matter how much they think they are, their brains just don't process properly, it's not their fault.

The problem is people coming in here and when people explain 2+2 is 4 they start being disrespectful and calling other people idiots. And banning you WILL solve our problem. And wether you go troll other forums or not doesn't matter to us because our community is made better by that absence.


Warped Savant wrote:
Altaica wrote:
I'm a linguist
You have done nothing to demonstrate that and a fair number of things to show the opposite.

I could make some abstract syntax trees of some sentences written by schizophrenics but you wouldn't be able to tell if I just had a cat walk across my keyboard.

Warped Savant wrote:
No need for insults on the board. And you spelled "confused" wrong.

obviously there is if I can't say "I don't know how to say I have information you don't have without challenging your omniscienteness and therefore sounding insulting" without making you feel insulted.

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.

Sorry I keep bumping the touchpad which causes me to select and drag text around and I'm so use to people being semantically sloppy that it doesn't even phase me anymore.

"If they mean that you get your bonus spell slots 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

Warped Savant wrote:
What track record?

of language use.

If you know someone calls fido and lassie cats then you know when he says "cats chase cars", he means "canines follow after automobiles"

Warped Savant wrote:
Or are you trying to imply again that Paizo doesn't know what they're doing?
They know what they are doing they just don't care about being clear because the rules are only meant to be a guideline for GM. you know "Rulings not rules" as they say in 5e.
Quote:
(As you've done in a few threads already?)
MY problem isn't with paizo writing ambiguous rules it's with the Pathfinder society insisting that DM should follow the rules at written when they have a hissyfit if a GM makes a ruling that goes against the majority. Pathfinder isn't like 4e it wasn't written to give every group the same game without any interference from GM variance. I heard that Pathfinder was bigger than 4e and that PF2e is a response to PF losing ground to 5e so it's obvious that the masses want "rulings not rules"
Warped Savant wrote:
If you don't like how the company does things you don't need to participate in the games that they produce.

As I said my problem is with Pathfinder Society not Paizo an unfortunately I don't have any other options for face to face RPGs other than this group and like I said elsewhere It's therapy for me not something I do as a hobby THou I do RPG as a hobby but when I play for pleasure I use Powers & Perils

Quote:
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.

Hopefully my correction of the word spell slot for feat makes it clear. Basically I'm asking if you understand how it could be interpreted that you get your 5th level bonus spell slot when you get a 5th level spell(like cure light wounds, mass) not when you get a 5th level spell slot.

My secret desire if for some to says, "I see how you made that mistake, the wording is a little unclear if you don't already know what the rule is." but baby steps.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I honestly don't see what you are trying to accomplish here.

The existence of the FAQ is pretty solid admission that the wording causes confusion.


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.


Altaica wrote:


"If they mean that you get your bonus spell slots 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

MY problem isn't with paizo writing ambiguous rules it's with the Pathfinder society insisting that DM should follow the rules at written when they have a hissyfit if a GM makes a ruling that goes against the majority.

My secret desire if for some to says, "I see how you made that mistake, the wording is a little unclear if you don't already know what the rule is."

A bit of editing to filter noise and narrow down the talking points.

First clause: You do not get bonus spells until you get the ability to cast spells of that level. The way you're wording that is the reverse of how most divine casters work. Clerics for example can memorize any spell of a level once they can cast a spell of that level. There is no exception for certain classes, you clearly have the order reversed. You get the bonus spells when you can cast a spell of that level. Period, end of discussion.

If it worked like you want it to, that also means you'd be able to claim bonus spells from classes you don't even have so long as you know a spell it can cast. How many classes can cast Magic Missile? This obviously doesn't work, because you don't get the bonus spell slots till you pick up the class and get that spell slot opened by the class.

And yes, if you go first level wizard and first level magus you do get bonus spells for first level for both classes from your 12+ intelligence. All of this bonus spells is keyed off the class opening the spell slot to you, not knowledge of the spells.

Second Clause: Pathfinder Society is concerned with their representatives (GMs) having consistent practices (rulings) so that their customers (players) have a consistent experience (game) when they go from one location to another. I'm sure you'll find the same hold true of Wizards of the Coast if you go to their official sponsored events.

Third Clause: I see how you made that mistake, the wording is a little unclear if you don't already know what the rule is. One wish fulfilled. I hope your day is looking a little better. Enjoy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't see why everyone has to be told to tiptoe around someone who is intentionally being toxic.

The very idea that it becomes someone elses problem doesnt address the fact it shouldn't be a problem in the first place, except its intentionally toxic.

Therefore, flagging. Please remove from site and existence.


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.


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"?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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"?

The Exchange

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.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Altaica wrote:
That's because your an idiot.

you're*

Altaica wrote:
I would like to hear you're explanation for why no one sees the reason for this post, nor the insults towards everyone who reads it.

your*


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.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The topic should have stayed dead and buried given the OP doesn't show any inclinations towards being reasonable.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

This thread has no reason to continue. The question as to when you gain bonus spells has been asked and answered. To the OP, if you don’t like that ruling, then run your own home campaign and alter the rules as you see fit. In PFS, you must follow the rules as written by the designers and as interpreted by the develops of the campaign. There are some situations where table variation exists, but this is not one of those cases.


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.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / what does "You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels." mean All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.