Holy cow! Preparing spells is HARD now!

[Campbell]

WatersLethe wrote:

The "in this book" limitation makes a lot of sense if it's intentional. Druids and Clerics have a huge cognitive load right out of the gate since they get access to the whole list. If that keeps growing it'll get out of hand for new players. Looking at the specific language:

Cleric: "...the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access."

Druid: "...the common spells on the primal spell list in this book (page 314), or from other primal spells to which you gain access."

Wizard: "...the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book (page 307) or from other arcane spells you gain access to."

It all looks pretty intentional.

I also like that it makes it easier to square in the fiction. If a new book comes out and all of a sudden Clerics and Druids are preparing all these new spells they previously had no access to it can be hard to square like where those spells came from. Obviously the release of the Advanced Player's Guide is not like a world changing event.

[Ravingdork]

Campbell wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

The "in this book" limitation makes a lot of sense if it's intentional. Druids and Clerics have a huge cognitive load right out of the gate since they get access to the whole list. If that keeps growing it'll get out of hand for new players. Looking at the specific language:

Cleric: "...the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access."

Druid: "...the common spells on the primal spell list in this book (page 314), or from other primal spells to which you gain access."

Wizard: "...the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book (page 307) or from other arcane spells you gain access to."

It all looks pretty intentional.

I also like that it makes it easier to square in the fiction. If a new book comes out and all of a sudden Clerics and Druids are preparing all these new spells they previously had no access to it can be hard to square like where those spells came from. Obviously the release of the Advanced Player's Guide is not like a world changing event.

That's a Good point WayersLethe. In that context, it does make a lot of sense.

I agree, Campbell, that it was odd for spellcasters with established tactics to suddenly change them up every time an awesome new spell showed up out of the blue.

[Squiggit]

Ravingdork wrote:

...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.

Just for comparison, the PF1 CRB says:

Quote:

A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Chapter 10

Quote:

A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10.

Quote:

A druid casts divine spells which are drawn from the druid spell list presented in Chapter 10.

etc.

So this isn't new language. Not sure why people are treating this as some major paradigm shift in how Paizo's presenting the rules.

[Temperans]

It's probably the same reason some think racial feats are new, but they are just not competing with other feats anymore.

[Ravingdork]

Squiggit wrote:

So this isn't new language. Not sure why people are treating this as some major paradigm shift in how Paizo's presenting the rules.

That probably has something to do with developer commentary regarding their deliberate moves towards a GM empowerment paradigm.

[Samurai]

Ravingdork wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Franz Lunzer wrote:

While the release of new spells is going to be faster than 5e, most new spells will also likely be at least Uncommon, if not Rare.

So while spell-lists might grow fast, Spells known for PC's don't.

From aps and modules for sure, but from books like the APG I doubt it.

Not that, that matters when making new prepared casters...

Cleric ...you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book...

Druid ...you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the primal spell list in this book...

Wizard You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book...

...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.

So unless you're a bard or sorcerer, which don't have that language, all of your spells MUST still come from the Core Rulebook DESPITE whatever new books you may have in your collection, or else you need permission from your GM to get access.

You forgot the rest of the sentences:

"...or from other (Divine/Primal/Arcane) spells to which you gain access."

That means if you or your GM buys or borrows another book (or reads about them online) that has more common spells in it, you can access them too!

[Ed Reppert]

Temperans wrote:

It's probably the same reason some think racial feats are new, but they are just not competing with other feats anymore.

Racial feats? What racial feats? No such thing in PF2. :-)

[Bandw2]

Saedar wrote:

Hot Take: Blood Money and similar problems (from anyone in the group) should just be resolved by tossing toxic people out of your group. ez

Like... Seriously, people. Just talk to the people in your group. If someone is notably disruptive, tell them to take a hike forever.

i mean, someone taking blood money isn't toxic, but it can be harder to ask a player to take a spell off their list than requiring they ask you first.

[Deriven Firelion]

And the incapacitatation trait and how counteract checks makes choice even more difficult. You have to have an appropriate counteract or you won't be able to counteract high level effects. Any spell with the incapacitate trait must be of a level that isn't less than double the creatures you are casting it on or it automatically improves their success chances to save against. So a charm 1st level can't do as much to any creature past level 2. You have to think about if a spell will be useful learning at a higher level to affect higher level creatures as effectively.

[Dracala]

Temperans wrote:

It's probably the same reason some think racial feats are new, but they are just not competing with other feats anymore.

You say this but now there aren't Racial Packages either... Which makes Racial Feats NEED to have their own space... Which was kind of the point wasn't it? To make being a part of your race be backloaded a bit? >.>

Honestly, I don't even understand why x.x

[Edge93]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Including the restriction "this book" isn't ambiguous, it is very simple and clear, and has to be a clear intention of the designers.

The spells from other books will be available, with your GM's permission, or through other options in those books, I'd bet.

Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.
** spoiler omitted **

I still don't get people like you, empowered players was the best thing about 1e. The main selling point for me.

Yeah, us silly GMs who don't like having hours of planning and prep result in anticlimax because a player stumbled upon a broken combo in some splatbook and didn't think they should have to consult the GM about it, or even some spell or ability that isn't straight broken but just shuts down specific situations or scenarios. XP

That's about the only kind of player empowerment you can't get while also empowering the GMs. And that's not empowerment, that's entitlement.

[Temperans]

Isnt that just a problem of poor communication between the player and GM? I mean you the GM should: 1) Realize players wont follow your plans; 2) You need to check whether players have changed their sheets and how; 3) The GM is all powerful, you can make and do literally what ever you want, all a player has is whatever the books or you give them.

So yeah empowered players was one of the main selling points of PF1. And it has nothing to do with empowering GMs or preparing spells so let's get back on topic.

I can see a system where you have say 9/10 circles to mark which are the useful heightened versions. That way it's a visual representation of which spells are best where. Also taking note of a "default set" so that you only have to worry when you want to prep something different.

[Angel Hunter D]

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

As a GM in PF1, I was horrified when one of the players in my group was reading off his spell list and named the spell Blood Money.

He never asked me. It had never come up in the campaign. He had seen it listed on hero lab and thought it looked "pretty cool" so he selected it.
No, no, no, sir. This is not how we do things.
So I like the default rule of not selecting things unless they're common. Saves me hassle down the road.

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun - even more when a martial finds a way to do it instead of a cleric doing meditation to prep the perfect divine spell or a Wizard grabbing a scroll they just happened to scribe. Don't bring entitlement into this, because frankly you sound like you're in that camp.

Temperans, you're absolutely right - that's a communication issue. I GM way more than I play, and the amount of bellyaching from other GMs is always surprising to me. We're running a cooperative game with agency, not a rail shooter, and we aren't writing a book.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Ravingdork wrote:

Wizard You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book...

I went back and read this and in context it is

"You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book (page 307) or from other arcane spells you gain access to."

Or

"Each time you gain a level, you add two more arcane
spells to your spellbook, of any level of spell you can cast. You can also use the Arcana skill to add other spells that you find in your adventures, as described on page 241."

The second part has no limitation on books and is directly related to spells as you level. And the "or from other primal spells to which you gain access to" is ambiguous enough for first level imo.

We will see in the future I guess, but as written wizards still choose from any book when levelling.

[Ascalaphus]

In practice the first time Paizo publishes a big book with a lot of spells, PFS is going to have to decide whether they'll be accessible without special hoop-jumping. And that'll probably set the standard for a lot of people outside PFS too.

[Zapp]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I highly, highly, highly doubt Paizo intended to make all spells from other books not available. I think you're reading into the intention of the wording wrong.

The wording is

"At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and
five cantrips each morning from the common spells on
the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other
divine spells to which you gain access."

To me it is clear as day that in order to prepare spells from any other book than the CRB, you need to "gain access".

It doesn't have to be a choice between "you gain every spell ever" and "you gain no spells at all". It can be "you gain the spells the GM wants you to have".

For all those groups where players feel entitled to take everything without asking, this is a HUGE boon for the beleaguered Games Master :-)

[james014Aura]

First, the topic: Yeah, it's hard. My multiclass sample builds had trouble selecting spells that don't care about heightening because I don't see Signature Spell on the list of things MC Bard/Sorc get. That said, my general method is: for signature spells, try and find something that works at as many levels as possible. Then for everyone, if a spell has a really good effect with heightening, consider it there without any riders on it.

Regardless, it's very difficult to figure out what works, for that. The heighten marks on Archives of Nethys don't really give an indication of what to avoid or go for if you want a certain type of heightening.

_______________

Zapp wrote:

For all those groups where players feel entitled to take everything without asking, this is a HUGE boon for the beleaguered Games Master :-)

Better fix: a book for GMs reminding them how powerful they are, that they're in charge, and ways to counter OP strats. (Puffin Forest link: starts at 40s, important bit ends at 52s) "You are the GM. You are literally more powerful than gods." And reminding them that outside organized play, they're free to sometimes swap out something the OP strat counters and instead put something in that checks it.

PF 1 example: Give each powerful spell an opposed spell that makes it unreliable - teleport trap for teleport, a powerful illusion for scrying, etc.

PF 1 example 2: someone can turn invis as an SLA. You have a miniboss fight coming up, and the miniboss has a partial check to invis, so take the opportunity and swap a few things to give the miniboss an ability that lets him hit invis enemies - blind fight, back then.

I don't deny that some things needed reining in. My group never really used Blood Money, but I can see how deadly that would be. Some things need clamping down on.

_____________

HOWEVER, what this does is beleaguer many more GMs with players asking for access to something thematic, but not technically in the list. For example, for wizards, some schools (*cough*divination*cough*) have a distinct shortage of decent spells that aren't at least Uncommon.

The issue isn't in how much power the GM has. It's in how the GM perceives that power. The issue is that we need to raise awareness of that... and, yes, rein in a few of the worst abuses, like using a Unique spell as if it were so common..

[BellyBeard]

james014Aura wrote:

Better fix: a book for GMs reminding them how powerful they are, that they're in charge, and ways to counter OP strats. (Puffin Forest link: starts at 40s, important bit ends at 52s) "You are the GM. You are literally more powerful than gods." And reminding them that outside organized play, they're free to sometimes swap out something the OP strat counters and instead put something in that checks it.

PF 1 example: Give each powerful spell an opposed spell that makes it unreliable - teleport trap for teleport, a powerful illusion for scrying, etc.

I highly disagree. This is one of the major causes of forever GMs and GM-player antagonism IMO.

First, having to build every single adventure around every OP combo your players might pull out of 10 years of splat books is, frankly, impossible to do without knowing their specific builds. You can prepare against the most common stuff, but that it difficult all on its own, so the GM ends up being the one with enough system mastery to rein in things, and newer players can't GM at all. I had first hand experience with this: we all took turns DMing, but the less experienced players (myself included) swung hard back and forth between everything being a pushover or a TPK.

Second, if you modify the adventure once you know their builds, you create an anti-fun dynamic where in every encounter that counters their build they can't do the thing the character is made for. Then you have to throw them some encounters that don't counter them to keep them happy, and they roll over them. Again, oscillating between far too easy and TPKs. Balancing this sort of thing to stay fun for the whole party becomes even harder with more than one OP character in the team.

Setting the GM up for discussions about these options is a much better approach. It allows the GM to talk with the player about their build, offer their perspective if they might not want some options in the game, and maybe work with the player to houserule so they can still realize their character idea without outshining others and creating a rocket tag game.

[Zapp]

james014Aura wrote:

Better fix: a book for GMs reminding them how powerful they are, that they're in charge, and ways to counter OP strats.

First off, I am sure you are merely pretending you haven't heard the myriad of stories from Gms not wanting to say no and ending up in s**% creek because of it.

Second, you don't "counter" OP strats, you cut them off at the root.

The idea you should play along, allow "OP strats" and come up with balancing measures by besting the OP:er at his own game is exhaustingly old.

Why spend all that time and effort when you have determined it is the "OP strat" that is disruptive, not your lack of work hours in trying to humor him?

Seriously.

[james014Aura]

first, keeping things still on the topic: I just remembered that with overlap between the schools, multiclasses are even harder to decide on. That said, I've seen a general sentiment of blasts in the top and utility in the bottom. I can't fault that plan, aside from noting that I like to have three elemental damages, at least one of which can both be spammed (cantrip, usually) and shuts down some regeneration effects.

I'm not sure if this will get easier or harder with more books. More options to find something decent for any build, but more to sort out every time...

_________

BellyBeard wrote:

I highly disagree. This is one of the major causes of forever GMs and GM-player antagonism IMO.

Zeroth like Rule Zero: You're all on the same team, even though the GM's job is to provide opposition. That needs to be understood before all else. Lack of understanding THAT is what causes antagonism.

First: never said around EVERY combo. Some mild optimization keeps things difficult enough without causing problems.

Second: No, just modify a few encounters. Like, and I actually did this in pf1, making a character who has countermeasures to invisibility but NOT see invis or the like - Scent + Blind Fight. Didn't counter the Duergar martial's power, merely made the power less effective. But aside from being a brute with that power, it lost to another PC using their nova. Don't counter EVERYONE at once, just put some things in that make their really strong combos not walk over everything.

Balancing for more than one OP character is easier than just one: counter one player, and check a second, but the others can run wild. Then change from one fight to the next who's weaker. Everyone gets to shine! Just not any one person all the time.

If the party focuses on melee but has some ranged, then once in a while set them against a flier or two. Maybe give them a little warning once in a while.

If the party likes Fireball and Electric Arc, give some enemies a couple Resist Energy spells. But they don't have enough slots to guard at their most powerful, so they use lower-level slots and get some passable resistance to the attacks, but the effect isn't as destructive as it could be, either.

__________

Which brings me back to spell selection: I like to skew towards utility and debuffs and buffs and just snag a couple damaging cantrips, and maybe a few attacks just in case. It's whiteboarding, though, until I get a chance to try them out. I'm a big fan of magic-as-utility, but we need more books for that not to be meaninfful instead of a hunt to find a diamond or two in the rough.

[Cyouni]

Or we could not play spell rocket tag, because the result sucks for everyone.

Just a thought.

[Edge93]

Temperans wrote:

Isnt that just a problem of poor communication between the player and GM? I mean you the GM should: 1) Realize players wont follow your plans; 2) You need to check whether players have changed their sheets and how; 3) The GM is all powerful, you can make and do literally what ever you want, all a player has is whatever the books or you give them.

So yeah empowered players was one of the main selling points of PF1. And it has nothing to do with empowering GMs or preparing spells so let's get back on topic.

I can see a system where you have say 9/10 circles to mark which are the useful heightened versions. That way it's a visual representation of which spells are best where. Also taking note of a "default set" so that you only have to worry when you want to prep something different.

I like how all three of those points are adding more work onto the GM, the one who already does the most work by far at least 99% of the time, rather than putting any extra effort or responsibility on the players. Kinda highlighting my problem with this outlook here.

[Edge93]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

As a GM in PF1, I was horrified when one of the players in my group was reading off his spell list and named the spell Blood Money.

He never asked me. It had never come up in the campaign. He had seen it listed on hero lab and thought it looked "pretty cool" so he selected it.
No, no, no, sir. This is not how we do things.
So I like the default rule of not selecting things unless they're common. Saves me hassle down the road.

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun - even more when a martial finds a way to do it instead of a cleric doing meditation to prep the perfect divine spell or a Wizard grabbing a scroll they just happened to scribe. Don't bring entitlement into this, because frankly you sound like you're in that camp.

Temperans, you're absolutely right - that's a communication issue. I GM way more than I play, and the amount of bellyaching from other GMs is always surprising to me. We're running a cooperative game with agency, not a rail shooter, and we aren't writing a book.

And then when the GM has to spend freaking hours trying to make opponents that can survive whatever BS the players have access to (while trying to not cross over to the fine line where you've overtuned and players are dropping like flies) because every encounter is ROFLstomped by OP characters, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's a good thing to just have free access to whatever without needing to communicate with or check with your GM. Breaking encounters can be cool on occasion, but it's a flipping nightmare when it's the norm, especially on the GM (who, again, you seem to think should be the one to have to put in the work to pick up the pieces after the players do what they want. Which is why your statements sound dangerously close to entitled.)

It's not like players have to have broken tools to influence the game. My best campaign by far has been the one I have going on where the players have changed the story several times in ways I didn't expect. And how did they do it? Not by pointing at splatbooks and insisting they get certain abilities because they're there. They did it by actually participating in the story and making an effort to apply themselves.

[Bandw2]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

a lot of people, myself included use the D20PFSRD site and it's not really easy to search for what's inside any given book. many people, myself included started playing by using the site.

[Ubertron_X]

Bandw2 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

a lot of people, myself included use the D20PFSRD site and it's not really easy to search for what's inside any given book. many people, myself included started playing by using the site.

Most of the time it is all about clear communication. When GM'ing I usually specify the allowed source material upfront, so everything is clear and all players have the same source material available (usually the books or PDFs I own). For example when I started our Rise of the Runelords campaign I limited the players to just the CRB and the APG and everybody was fine with it.

Keep in mind that no GM in the world will have memorized everything that has ever been published (and which can usually be accessed on the D20PFSRD site or the Nethys archives), so before my adventure path gets ruined by cheesy class combinations and poorly written feats and spells I reserve my right to restrict the players to manageable levels.

That is not to say that players can not deviate from those restrictions at all, e.g. if they want to use a different class, however everything will solely be down to GM approval then (and I usually request the player to either own a hardcover or the respective PDF if I do not own the source material myself, so I can have a look at the additional content).

[Ed Reppert]

Brew Bird wrote:

I think that (somewhat amusingly) playing high level casters is going to end up a lot more like how I build decks in Magic: The Gathering. That is: using online tools to search cards (or spells) for keywords and mechanics that fit with the particular strategy of a deck (or character).

I'm glad the Archives of Nethys have a pretty thorough search function.

Pretty much any search engine is going to depend to at least some extent on knowing what to look for.

[Temperans]

Both d20pfsrd and aonprd list the source book with links. I also didnt saw anyone say that players should get free access, but that GMs need to be more assertive with their powers.

The GM has literally 2 jobs: 1) Create the encounters and overall story; 2) Moderate the players and rules. So yeah if the GM wont moderate the players he has to spend more time prepping. All I continue to hear is complaints that players are using the tools you let them have versus your railroaded stories (or you overcompensating). Which again comes down to poor communication.

Just because a player has a good tool does not mean they aren't participating in the story. It's just not participation 'you' wanted them to have.

[Matthew Downie]

Temperans wrote:

The GM has literally 2 jobs

In my last campaign I considered these my jobs:

1 Read ahead in the adventure.

2 Remember as much of it as possible so I'm not always having to stop and reread it at the table.

3 Prepare printouts of monster stats for encounters so I can annotate them.

4 Find art on the internet so I can print out minis for them.

5 Make sure I understand any special rules for the monsters, learn the effects of spells they can cast, etc.

6 For all intelligent NPCs, come up with some dialogue, personality, tone of voice, etc, so they can interact smoothly with the PCs.

7 Fix the bits of the campaign that are boring and bad, or which expect the PCs to do things they won't want to do.

8 Plan for likely player actions, come up with possible responses.

9 Add extra bits to the campaign, personalised content that ties in with the PCs' backstories.

I'd prefer not have to add "understand player's character sheets" to that list.

[Ed Reppert]

"Find art on the internet so I can print out minis for them."

Um. How does that work? 3D printer?

Even in a game, never having to do anything I don't want to do would get pretty boring after a while.

I think "understanding players' character sheets" is part of the package.

[Squiggit]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I'd prefer not have to add "understand player's character sheets" to that list.

I mean, no offense but I consider understanding what your players are trying to do and what they're playing to be one of the most basic things a GM should be doing.

The idea that a GM wouldn't try to understand what he's working with in terms of players and characters strikes me as really bizarre.

[CrystalSeas]

Squiggit wrote:

The idea that a GM wouldn't try to understand what he's working with in terms of players and characters strikes me as really bizarre.

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post

Matthew Downie wrote:

In my last campaign I considered these my jobs:

<snip>.

7 Fix the bits of the campaign that are boring and bad, or which expect the PCs to do things they won't want to do.

8 Plan for likely player actions, come up with possible responses.

9 Add extra bits to the campaign, personalised content that ties in with the PCs' backstories.

[Anguish]

Edge93 wrote:

I like how all three of those points are adding more work onto the GM, the one who already does the most work by far at least 99% of the time, rather than putting any extra effort or responsibility on the players. Kinda highlighting my problem with this outlook here.

This entire debate is a Coke/Pepsi, Burger King/McDonalds argument. It's preference, plain and simple. Neither side is "right". Neither side is "wrong". Paizo chose a default stance on rules this time that is different from the one WotC created with the game that gave Paizo something to print for over a decade. Time will tell if this change works for enough people to pay the bills for another decade.

That said, to illustrate how this debate doesn't have a right and wrong, I'll address what you've said...

Bunk.

With a default-allow rule, a DM can safely ignore the vast, vast majority of rules Paizo prints. The same two or three disruptive rules keep getting brought up. Blood Money. Sacred Geometry. Almost Nothing Else. Those three. A DM can be pleasantly surprised at the table when a player uses something new and interesting, just as players are pleasantly surprised when monsters do something new and interesting. When the exceedingly rare circumstance occurs that something disruptive does hit the table, the DM can just say "yeah, that's causing me a problem, so that'll be one one spell out of 10,000 that I'm going to disallow". No extra work.

Wanna know what is extra work? A default-disallow rule. Now a DM gets to read every rule a player thinks they want to use. While the player is shuffling around in the Lego box, musing as to what works well to express the choices they're going to get stuck with for a while, they ask the DM which blocks are in and which blocks are out. More reading for the poor, overworked DM. Most of which is pointless since the player won't pick most of 'em.

Anyway, look, all I'm trying to do is point out that this is... a silly argument that's happening. Personally, I loathe default-deny rules on anything except a stateful firewall. But I respect Paizo's decision and your liking that decision. Just don't imagine it's necessarily "right", and we can all get along.

[Paradozen]

Squiggit wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

I'd prefer not have to add "understand player's character sheets" to that list.

I mean, no offense but I consider understanding what your players are trying to do and what they're playing to be one of the most basic things a GM should be doing.

The idea that a GM wouldn't try to understand what he's working with in terms of players and characters strikes me as really bizarre.

For me, I think I only need a rough idea of what the players are capable of to plan. Things they do all the time which enemies could and logically would plan for, things that the players needed GM interpretation on, etc. I didn't make too much of an effort to know beyond that, things worked out pretty well. Tactics the party always used occasionally were thwarted, tools the party kept in their back pocket for emergencies led to fun and memorable moments, not much fell outside of these two categories. I doubt me auditing their character sheets to understand what those emergency tools were would have made the game more entertaining, and all I really cared about was that everyone was entertained. I'm sure this isn't the case for all GMs or groups, but I definitely see where Matthew Downie is coming from.

[Draco18s]

Temperans wrote:

Both d20pfsrd and aonprd list the source book with links.

It does but you can't do anything to filter by book. You have to look at the spell name, decide if its cool or not, then check what book its in. Manually. For every spell. Its quite tedious.

[Squiggit]

Draco18s wrote:

It does but you can't do anything to filter by book. You have to look at the spell name, decide if its cool or not, then check what book its in. Manually. For every spell. Its quite tedious.

aonprd has a sourcebook section that displays all rules content within that sourcebook.

[Bandw2]

Ubertron_X wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

a lot of people, myself included use the D20PFSRD site and it's not really easy to search for what's inside any given book. many people, myself included started playing by using the site.

Most of the time it is all about clear communication. When GM'ing I usually specify the allowed source material upfront, so everything is clear and all players have the same source material available (usually the books or PDFs I own). For example when I started our Rise of the Runelords campaign I limited the players to just the CRB and the APG and everybody was fine with it.

Keep in mind that no GM in the world will have memorized everything that has ever been published (and which can usually be accessed on the D20PFSRD site or the Nethys archives), so before my adventure path gets ruined by cheesy class combinations and poorly written feats and spells I reserve my right to restrict the players to manageable levels.

That is not to say that players can not deviate from those restrictions at all, e.g. if they want to use a different class, however everything will solely be down to GM approval then (and I usually request the player to either own a hardcover or the respective PDF if I do not own the source material myself, so I can have a look at the additional content).

right, but since people rely on the website and there's no real way to get everything from a book, you can't puruse the material, making a source book as a requirement usless, as there's no real way to tell what is from what until you go to that specific entry.

in this modern digital age, restricting to source books isn't that easy to do for some people.

[Gorbacz]

None of the 20+ people I run Pathfinder for ever selects player options based on books. They just comb AoN/d20pfsrd for crunch, we live in the XXI century, you might try that sometime, it's really fun.

And a "core only" Pathfinder game is about as enticing as Warhammer 40k using only the minis from starter set and nothing else, ever. Not to mention the fact that "core only" shafts the martials even harder, as most of fun martial stuff lives in splat (Weapon Master's Handbook stuff, uRogue, Vigilante, etc. etc.)

[Ascalaphus]

Yeah I've been using the Sources entry from Archives of Nethys for ages. "Oooh new book, should I buy it? Let's use AoN to see what crunch is in it."

It's a books -> crunch instead of crunch -> books way of searching.

I mean, it's not super convenient. It would be nice if you could search crunch filtered to use only certain books. That's a major new search feature though, you can suggest it to AoN but I'm not sure how much priority it gets.

[Angel Hunter D]

Edge93 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

As a GM in PF1, I was horrified when one of the players in my group was reading off his spell list and named the spell Blood Money.

He never asked me. It had never come up in the campaign. He had seen it listed on hero lab and thought it looked "pretty cool" so he selected it.
No, no, no, sir. This is not how we do things.
So I like the default rule of not selecting things unless they're common. Saves me hassle down the road.

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun - even more when a martial finds a way to do it instead of a cleric doing meditation to prep the perfect divine spell or a Wizard grabbing a scroll they just happened to scribe. Don't bring entitlement into this, because frankly you sound like you're in that camp.

Temperans, you're absolutely right - that's a communication issue. I GM way more than I play, and the amount of bellyaching from other GMs is always surprising to me. We're running a cooperative game with agency, not a rail shooter, and we aren't writing a book.

And then when the GM has to spend freaking hours trying to make opponents that can survive whatever BS the players have access to (while trying to not cross over to the fine line where you've overtuned and players are dropping like flies) because every encounter is ROFLstomped by OP characters, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's a good thing to just have free access to whatever without needing to communicate with or check with your GM. Breaking encounters can be cool on occasion, but it's a flipping nightmare when it's the norm, especially on the GM (who, again, you seem to think should be the one to have to put in the work to pick up the pieces after the players do what they want. Which is...

As someone who had to GM for the first 5 or so years of my RPG time, I don't know what you're getting at. To me it sounds like a gas jockey saying having 3 grades of fuel AND diesel is too much to expect him to pump.

That's just part of the job, and half the fun. Sure, it can be a challenge. So is playing the game.

And I find myself agreeing with gorbacz for once, so between that that and the snow here I most conclude that hell has frozen over.

[Draco18s]

Squiggit wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

It does but you can't do anything to filter by book. You have to look at the spell name, decide if its cool or not, then check what book its in. Manually. For every spell. Its quite tedious.

aonprd has a sourcebook section that displays all rules content within that sourcebook.

OTOH, which is easier to read?

This or this?

Also, which one lists the book without having to navigate to a new page (even if the book abbrs are impossible to identify on occasion; quick, what's PZO1115? PZO9226? PZO1134?).

[Malk_Content]

Well unless you are being paid for it GMing is not a job. And most GMs supply all the materials for their group and pump in maybe double or triple the actual game time in prep. I have an actual job, studies and a child, so greatly appreciate less homework to create an engaging experience for my group.

[gnoams]

As far as the sourcebook wording goes in Pf2, I think it's well done. It is written to support different playstyles. So if the GM wants to have everything available, it supports that, if they want to cherry pick, it supports that, if they want to allow certain books and not others, it supports that. Having that wording in the crb lets players know upfront that not everything will necessarily be available to them immediately so they won't be expecting to get to use something and feeling upset when it is taken away.

As for the srd or aon sites, both of them are pretty good at listing the sourcebooks at the bottom. It would be really nice if they could implement a feature where you could check which books you wanted displayed though.

[Ravingdork]

Sorry for not posting in the last few days. Household internet is out, and will be for the next week.

Samurai wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Franz Lunzer wrote:

While the release of new spells is going to be faster than 5e, most new spells will also likely be at least Uncommon, if not Rare.

So while spell-lists might grow fast, Spells known for PC's don't.

From aps and modules for sure, but from books like the APG I doubt it.

Not that, that matters when making new prepared casters...

Cleric ...you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book...

Druid ...you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the primal spell list in this book...

Wizard You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book...

...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.

So unless you're a bard or sorcerer, which don't have that language, all of your spells MUST still come from the Core Rulebook DESPITE whatever new books you may have in your collection, or else you need permission from your GM to get access.

You forgot the rest of the sentences:

"...or from other (Divine/Primal/Arcane) spells to which you gain access."

That means if you or your GM buys or borrows another book (or reads about them online) that has more common spells in it, you can access them too!

I didn't forget. They just didn't seem all that relevant.

They only support my position anyways. You need the GM's permission to GAIN ACCESS to the new content. That matches with my stance and with what I've said previously in this thread. There is no access to new content without the GM first granting it.

In any case, this is starting to get a little far afield. Let's try and calm things down and bring it back to the original topic: The apparent difficulty or ease of preparing spells in 2nd Edition.

[Ed Reppert]

It’s not the difficulty in preparing spells that bothers you, it’s the difficulty in choosing which spells to prepare. :-)

[Malk_Content]

On topic. On the flip side most casting classes have features that lessen the burden on getting just the right spells chosen. Powerful cantrips, recharging focus spells and things like the wizard theses can really lessen the cognitive pressure. Picking the right spells absolutely can feel amazing, but you are generally going to contribute well enough even with a suboptimal set of choices.