| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think 99% of people who read the spellcasting section of clerics and druids would interpret it this way. Its needlessly complicated and frankly seems downright pedantic to even assert that you should have to learn common spells as a cleric/druid.
This is a joke and most people who play will never read the rules this way.
What is needed is a clear and easy way to learn common spells from other sources. For example, when gaining a level, maybe these classes should automatically be able to learn a single common spell of a level they can cast? This rule would not have worked when we only had the Core Rulebook, but it might work now and should definitely work after Secrets of Magic comes out (which would make it a perfect book to add that rule to).
And common knowledge of such a rule would make it obvious that you cannot prepare any such spells that you did not learn per that new rule.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think 99% of people who read the spellcasting section of clerics and druids would interpret it this way
You actually think 1% of people interpreted it that way? I think you're significantly overestimating how many people interpreted it that way :-). I've yet to see one post to the various threads complaining about this change (I could have missed one, admittedly)
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
I dont think 99% of people who read the spellcasting section of clerics and druids would interpret it this wayYou actually think 1% of people interpreted it that way? I think you're significantly overestimating how many people interpreted it that way :-). I've yet to see one post to the various threads complaining about this change (I could have missed one, admittedly)
I don't know about any forum threads, but I did see some people calling out the "CRB-locked" language in the spellcasting features in some Dis cord discussions that were mainly people complaining about Rarity. So I can confirm that people who read that text as binding when they first got the 2E CRB are real.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about any forum threads, but I did see some people calling out the "CRB-locked" language in the spellcasting features in some Dis cord discussions that were mainly people complaining about Rarity. So I can confirm that people who read that text as binding when they first got the 2E CRB are real.I dont think 99% of people who read the spellcasting section of clerics and druids would interpret it this wayYou actually think 1% of people interpreted it that way? I think you're significantly overestimating how many people interpreted it that way :-). I've yet to see one post to the various threads complaining about this change (I could have missed one, admittedly)
Fair enough. I retract my snark.
Its sometimes hard to remember that everybody here is to some extent in a vocal minority echo chamber. And communities (including the online one) tend to be a bit insular and develop their own shared interpretations without necessarily even realizing that they have done so.
|
Venture-Agent, Utah
|
I'm quoting someone but not sure who
KingTreyIII wrote:
Josh Klingerman wrote:
Mike Bramnik wrote:"Since Wizards and Witches have to pay gold to learn spells beyond what they start with, this still leaves Clerics and Druids better-off, since they automatically know all common spells from the CRB, but to get access to the ones in other books, they're now a bit closer to the rest of the prepared casters in the game, financially."
But Clerics has by far the highest gold cost for material costs of spells. Remember all those gems/diamonds.
Pretty sure that was Mike. I know you DEFINITELY aren’t quoting me, though.
|
My guess is that at some point, the author thought about this situation:
Society play may bring together different people from around the world with different access to books and game info. How can we try to keep characters balanced from 1 game to another all over the country and the world?
Well, assumption 1 is that every player should have access to the CRB. So if we allow the caster to use any spell in the CRB (the book they are assumed to be reading when creating the character), that's fine, that has matches the assumption (perception) for "divine casters" (including Druids).
Then what do we do about new spells that we create in future sourcebooks , adventures, etc? Should the "divine casters" just keep getting more spell choices automatically while the other traditions have to learn the new spells by playing the adventure and finding them during it's course? That doesn't sound fair, does it?
And what about some player in another country playing online with US players, and the new sourcebook hasn't been translated yet into their language?
So he PF Society rules committee felt they had to come up with this rule/interpretation to try and keep things as balanced as they could without overruling what the CRB actually says.
If you are in an entirely local game, or one where everyone has access to sourcebooks (either physical or on AoN), I think you could safely go ahead and ignore the ruling and just play as most people who read the CRB rules would expect. Just be prepared that if one day you have someone new in your Society games that doesn't have that access, the rules may come into effect...
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.
from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.
Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something we have not addressed in this thread is how players select spells to use for their characters. Not everyone uses their physical books. Many have them, but for spells, they consult the spell lists on Archives of Nethys. While the spell description has the sources of the spells in there, that is not in the spell lists.
As we've noted here, this rule has us going the wrong way on simplifying beginning access to the game. I would really like to see what the Beginner Box text reads for how casters gain spells. Once that box is released, that's going to be a major avenue of approach for new players coming to PFS. Are we going to have a steep learning curve for new players to PFS? If so, we are right back to where we were with PFS1.
This isn't about who is right and who is wrong. This is about what is best for growing OP. Let's see what the Beginner Box text says and go from there.
|
|
Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.
from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.
It seemed pretty clear to me and mine that, that was regarding otherwise restricted spells to which you have Access (typically from a feat, ability, or GM).
Example: Fireball on a cleric of a nature deity.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.
from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.It seemed pretty clear to me and mine that, that was regarding otherwise restricted spells to which you have Access (typically from a feat, ability, or GM).
Example: Fireball on a cleric of a nature deity.
So you ignored the four rarities in the rulebook, essentially.
"Common elements are prevalent enough, at least among adventurers, that a player is assumed to be able to access them provided they meet the prerequisites (if any)."
There was never any pre-requisite on the common spells from new books that they had to be learned seperately or anything like that. The book itself tells you that by default, you have access to the common spells on your list.
|
|
So you ignored the four rarities in the rulebook, essentially.Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.
from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.It seemed pretty clear to me and mine that, that was regarding otherwise restricted spells to which you have Access (typically from a feat, ability, or GM).
Example: Fireball on a cleric of a nature deity.
Not at all! Getting access to something because it is Common is not the same as having it.
A fighter has access to a myriad of common weapons, but he still needs to pay for his sword (unless a feat, ability, or GM gives it to him for free).
This is much the same. You do haves access to these common spells. You just need to pay for them.
It makes a lot of sense on many other levels too, as a wise old grognard stated in another thread:
- It makes things less daunting for new players
- Requires less overall reading from the GM leading to less mistakes over time
- Is not the same as uncommon
- Solves an issue that cleric and druid had in 3.5/PF1e and one hst would have been WAY worse with there only being 4 spell traditions.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, the OP team appears to be saying that we do not have access.
I understand that. RavingDork is arguing that it was obvious that we didn't have access before the OP made their statement. He even says "You do haves access to these common spells." If we do have access, then we can prepare them. But we don't have access, because of the statement from the OP. Not because it was in any way clear that we didn't have access based on everything that was presented prior to that statement.
EDIT: Essentially, it has been redefined to mean that we have access to learn them, not that we have access to them, and that was not stated anywhere prior.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I agree that it could be read the way RD read it. I did, when I actually bothered to look at it.
I don't see any way that you can both claim that you have access to the spells and read that sentence as saying that you can't prepare the spells, when it says that you can prepare any spell to which you gain access, which is what he did in his post.
|
Venture-Agent, Utah
|
Sadly, the OP team appears to be saying that we do not have access.
If I may paraphrase Tonya: the OPL cannot make an accurate statement about what the true intention was for specific wording in the CRB, only the dev team can. Otherwise, all the OPL can do is read the rules and interpret it in the strictest sense possible and make a widespread GM call based on that. Until someone from the dev team chimes in, the best that that response means is "If that's what's written in the Core, then that's what's written in the Core."
I know I'm being super pedantic, but it's that pedanticism that's keeping me from tearing my hair out in stress and anxiety at all of this.
|
Venture-Agent, Utah
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Common elements are prevalent enough, at least among adventurers, that a player is assumed to be able to access them provided they meet the prerequisites (if any)."
There was never any pre-requisite on the common spells from new books that they had to be learned seperately or anything like that. The book itself tells you that by default, you have access to the common spells on your list.
Interesting. By THAT definition in the GMG, you DO have access to common stuff, which would mean that you COULD prepare them because of the "or any spell to which you have access" clause. I missed that particular definition.
|
|
It seemed pretty clear to me and mine that, that was regarding otherwise restricted spells to which you have Access (typically from a feat, ability, or GM).Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.
from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.
Interpretation of the sentence aside, let us assume we all came to your conclusion quoted here.
The GM (Org Play) had granted us Access in the Character Options blog, fulfilling that requirement of being "other divine spells to which you gain access. Since you have no PFS(2) characters, you can be forgiven for being ignorant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
