So, the Dimensional Occultist Witch gains the Planar Binding spells through the dimensions patron. Planar Binding seems to require you to be able to cast a Magic Circle spell. The Witch has none of the Magic Circle spells on their spell list. Does this make this feature of the archetype (the main appeal to me) useless or does this mean that casting Magic Circle is included in the casting of Planar Binding?
I love the fact that the first line of the FAQ admits an obvious error... which is hilarious, because then they go on to do literally nothing to fix it.
Not give your Planar Binding spells a free Magic Circle... no.
Not add Magic Circle to your spells... no.
Have someone else can cast it for you because we are too lazy to do anything to fix this, and frankly, we just don't give a d@mn...
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Fortunately, we can fix it ourselves. : D
"You get a magic circle! You get a magic circle! Everybody gets a magic circle! What, you're not a caster? Sod it, here's a magic circle ritual instead, just don't mess it up or you might break the local geometry. Whee, I'm givin' away magic circles!"
...Or something like that.
For the record, I'm not sure that they consider it an error. Look at the psychic list. Planar binding line, yes... Magic or Thaumaturgical Circle, NO!
To my mind, it's really dumb. Yet they have done it twice now, after the subject was repeatedly brought up when the Dimensional Occultist archetype was printed...
pad300 wrote:Essentially yes, they wrote a broken Archetype...It's a side effect of them making a horrible mess of the Witch spell list.
They didn't just write a broken archetype... they proofread it... they edited it... and they even published it!
It's a side effect of having absolutely piss-poor quality control practices throughout the entire organization.
It doesn't surprise me one bit, honestly.
I'm sure someone will defend them... something about how the editing team they specifically pay to edit all their content cannot possibly be expected to edit all their content, or some such garbage.
This is rich.
I'm not saying that I don't agree with the premise, but the way you've phrased your comment is really insulting.