Hey everyone!
It's come to light in the Pathfinder Society due to a rules clarification that Clerics and Druids do not automatically add common spells from books other than the CRB to their list of spells they can prepare and cast, and must instead use Learn a Spell to gain those common spells.
I'd like to steer clear of discussing the RAW in this thread, since the OPM has said that the above is RAI, as in literally the designer intent of the Cleric and Druid classes. I suspect we'll receive an errata to that effect at some point.
Given that this makes them much more like Wizards (though not entirely, as they effectively begin play with all of the CRB spells on their list (in their books to extend the spellbook metaphor)), do you think that they should have been given a Spellbook-like class feature to indicate that learning new prayers and such would likely be a core aspect of the class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can easily see a cleric writing the new spells down in a book just like a wizard, but for druids, I'm not sure what such a repository would look like.
Overall, I'm fine with those spells just being "unlocked" and not stored anywhere. The player will have to mark down what they've learned somewhere, but I don't think that needs to be represented in-game. In fact, a spellbook might be confusing for a new player...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Especially because plenty of people may play with just the core rulebook, so having core ability that isn't relevant to core rules would be dumb.
Sorry, could you give me a source on this?
I'm flabbergasted that you would have to learn common spells that aren't in the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The blog post containing the clarification that Clerics and Druids have to Learn a Spell for APG spells: Right here
And then Tonya's clarification that it is the Design Team's intention for the CRB, not something that is specific to PFS: Right here
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the majority of people I play with would enforce this without specific errata/FAQ's in place stating it. Until then, I think most would assume it's a PFS only clarification.
On the additional links, I don't see anything about confirmation that this is correct just that learn a spell is integral to the game... I don't see any Dev comment or someone saying it's from dev comments [just PFS people]: now it MAY be there as I'm just taking a quick look.
The whole problem would have gone away if Paizo had refrained from publishing any material labelled as "common" after the release of the CRB.
It would certainly have been easier to explain if clerics had a "prayer book" of spells, equivalent to a wizard's spell book.
This said, calling it "the most downright silly thing I've ever read" is pure hyperbolae. There are many examples of silly things that would rank higher, at least in my subjective estimation. Starting with non-magical healing in a single action with no hands and no materials.
YMMV.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then Tonya's clarification that it is the Design Team's intention for the CRB, not something that is specific to PFS: Right here
Would be nice to see an actual comment from the Dev team to this effect. Tonya's clarification here is weirdly roundabout and seems to some extent to contradict both the letter and spirit of the rules.
|
It's worse than people think.
Unlike wizards who at least get some spells for free as they level up clerics and druids do not. So, RAW clerics and druids have to use the Learn a Spell activity to get ANY spells as they level up.
And note that is an Exploration activity so it can't be done in downtime (unsubstantiated rumour is that PFS has waived that restriction).
Better hope that your campaign has lots of friendly clerics and druids around or lots of places to buy scrolls or you're stuck without new spells as you level up.
It's all complete nonsense of course but apparently those are now the rules and always were intended to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And note that is an Exploration activity so it can't be done in downtime (unsubstantiated rumour is that PFS has waived that restriction).
Can you cite rules text that says Exploration activities can't be done in Downtime? The closest I know of is
Some skill activities have the exploration or downtime trait. Exploration activities usually take a minute or more, while downtime activities may take a day or more. They usually can’t be used during an encounter, though the GM might bend this restriction. If you’re not sure whether you have the time to use one of these activities, ask your GM.
which doesn't forbid exploration activities during downtime at all.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this funny-sad because this is the type of rules idolatry that PF2 has addressed in sidebars. PF2's meant for a casual, colloquial interpretation, not rigorous parsing which may lead to bizarre outcomes like this.
By RAW, RAW is no longer king. It's abdicated it's dominance. I'd wondered how that might interact w/ PFS's RAW predilections and now I see it does so poorly.
Will Clerics and Druids have to make a point of sharing spells? Can they pick those up from characters with other magic traditions?
Will those with access to Uncommon spells (typically a Cleric through a deity) have to go through the same hoops as everybody else anyway to get the spells?
ETA: And if one can't learn new spells in Downtime, I guess I'll make a point of having plenty of Exploration time for players at the beginning and end of every session as able.
"Would you like to explore the local temples and/or groves?"
"Why yes, yes I would, thanks."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole problem would have gone away if Paizo had refrained from publishing any material labelled as "common" after the release of the CRB.
It would certainly have been easier to explain if clerics had a "prayer book" of spells, equivalent to a wizard's spell book.
This said, calling it "the most downright silly thing I've ever read" is pure hyperbolae. There are many examples of silly things that would rank higher, at least in my subjective estimation. Starting with non-magical healing in a single action with no hands and no materials.
YMMV.
The intent seemed really obvious to me and everyone I've played with that if it's common, you have access to it by default. This kind of reading of the rules is downright idiotic, to be honest with you. Yes, it specifies that you get the spells at page X of that book. It seems extremely clear that the reason it says that, is because that was the only book that was out as it's the original rulebook.
The team has been extremely clear on most issues like this and you'd have to be a fool in my opinion to actually start limiting clerics/druids in non PFS games. As somebody who was slightly interested in PFS, I now am not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't learn spells in downtime, you also can't move around, as Stride is not a downtime activity.
And you can't breath, it's not an activity in any of the game modes.
|
The team has been extremely clear on most issues like this and you'd have to be a fool in my opinion to actually start limiting clerics/druids in non PFS games. As somebody who was slightly interested in PFS, I now am not.
I just started playing PF2 Society in May of this year. My first experience with the Common tag not appearing to mean what I understand it to mean came into fruition with the use of an Armored Skirt on my dwarf who is not from Lastwall. Some Society GM’s said it was Common, thus anyone could use it. And then some said you had to be from Lastwall, and if you weren’t, you couldn’t use it. That particular debate hasn’t been settled, and in fact, the topic was resurrected a couple of days ago on the OPO Discord with a still unclear interpretation from GM to GM.
I’ve made it a point to purchase every book for the ruleset so that my customization options are vast. The spells debate with regards to Clerics and Druids is sort of my last straw for at least a little bit. I’m staying in my campaign games, one of which the GM has clarified that all Common tag spells are available to my cleric at their respective spell levels. And yet, until some of what I interpret as basic rules are clarified, I’m moving to another community organized ruleset for organized play. I’ve lost all motivation to figure out which tables will have what variation, when the whole point is that Society games are intended to be standardized. That’s not an indictment of the community though, who’ve been largely and as a majority of my experience, superb to interact with at the VTT ‘table’ and elsewhere. It’s mostly about my personal threshold for rules lawyering, which admittedly isn’t a very high one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the intent is that Common means anyone can have access/exposure to it. The rules allow for Clerics/Druids and such to have outright access knowledge and learning of the base Core spells that are common as they hit their level. I think the intent is that some spells while perhaps Common (something they absolutely can know and utilize), aren't however, ubiquitous (automatically known) items.
I think this is sort of a avoid automatic power-inflation for those spell classes that don't have spell books that after 10 years of new spells that those classes have 5x the starting spells they started with on day one and thus have a stronger advantage than on day one, on day one of their new character, ten years later.
So, it seems perfectly reasonable that a common spell, not in the core rulebook is accessible to a non-spellbook class, if they go through some minor trouble (probably pay cash and/or time) to learn said common spell. After all, not all uncommon spells are actually accessible to all. (focus spells for instance are uncommon, but it doesn't mean you can simply find an uncommon scroll of it and then learn how to cast the spell from a spell slot)
So a common spell, means you can learn to cast it without paying a feat. You can possibly even buy a copy of it on a scroll someplace relatively easily. You just don't inherently without effort learn it without any effort.
All spellcasters have a spells known trait. It isn't just Sorcerers. Spells known, are spells they have that they know about, it is a larger list, it includes common, uncommon, etc spells. The spells in their spellbook that they can cast are a subset of that list. The spells in a Sorcerer's Repertoire is a subset of it, and a Sorcerer must have the Spell Known to swap it into their Repertoire. So I think the clarification is indicating that Clerics/Druids have Spells Known at start of the current Core rulebook spells. They can easily add other spells to known if it is a common spell via learning the spell of their tradition with a small degree of effort. Adding uncommon (or rarer spells), requires more checks before they can learn it, depending on what is gating it and if it is a focus spell, etc.
Note: again, if it isn't Pathfinder Society play, the GM can easily grant you knowledge of any common (or otherwise) spell they consider appropriate, if you ask for it, and it makes sense, and doesn't cause problems for the campaign.
So one could call it a Mostly Common category, instead of Common, if you want to get picky, it really doesn't sound that awful in the long run. Honestly, I'd hope the Pathfinder Society would review common spells, and potentially make some of them, where appropriate, fall into the general scope, adding them to the list offered in the CRB for Society Play, as I would expect most GMs would do. It is just with Society Play, someone needs to make that judgement from an official capacity in the management structure.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
the whole thing makes no sense to me anymore. Clerics and druids get their spells by faith in either in divine or the natural. powers and knowledge that is granted. Adding this wrinkle raises all sorts of structural questions. So spell knowledge becomes separate from faith. I am almost never in favor of house rules, this is one where were I will ignore an official rule because it doesn't make any sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a weird hyperspecific reading of the rules I cannot imagine it is possibly RAI.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the whole thing makes no sense to me anymore. Clerics and druids get their spells by faith in either in divine or the natural. powers and knowledge that is granted. Adding this wrinkle raises all sorts of structural questions. So spell knowledge becomes separate from faith. I am almost never in favor of house rules, this is one where were I will ignore an official rule because it doesn't make any sense.
Don't Uncommon spells raise the same structural questions already?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
the whole thing makes no sense to me anymore. Clerics and druids get their spells by faith in either in divine or the natural. powers and knowledge that is granted. Adding this wrinkle raises all sorts of structural questions. So spell knowledge becomes separate from faith. I am almost never in favor of house rules, this is one where were I will ignore an official rule because it doesn't make any sense.Don't Uncommon spells raise the same structural questions already?
To some extent. But at least, in world, you can say "The GODS have decided that these spells shall only be given to the worthy"
Now we have "well, these spells are kinda new. Some people got them but others didn't. You're a cleric so no. But he is just a part time cleric so he gets them. And that Oracle who doesn't even worship a God, yeah he gets them too".
the whole thing makes no sense to me anymore. Clerics and druids get their spells by faith in either in divine or the natural. powers and knowledge that is granted. Adding this wrinkle raises all sorts of structural questions. So spell knowledge becomes separate from faith. I am almost never in favor of house rules, this is one where were I will ignore an official rule because it doesn't make any sense.Don't Uncommon spells raise the same structural questions already?
I don't like it, but I can easily justify it mechanically, by saying that your Deity has decided that you not be granted knowledge of this spell.
It's much harder in terms for druids, so I've never applied it to druids, as it doesn't make any sense with regards to druids, because nature is not personified in the same way as Gods in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it more of the fact that the CRB is the core rules and everything else is an add-on. So I think for non-society it more on what books the GM has allowed and CRB that there assuming is generally used. For Society, I think sense, not every player will have every book this system is to help balance between a player who has all the books and one who just made it with CRB.
|
Given that this makes them much more like Wizards (though not entirely, as they effectively begin play with all of the CRB spells on their list (in their books to extend the spellbook metaphor)), do you think that they should have been given a Spellbook-like class feature to indicate that learning new prayers and such would likely be a core aspect of the class?
Back when PF1 was first announced, 'CoDzilla' was a thing in 3.5, and I remember (vaguely) proposing that all casters should be forced to use the spontaneous or prepared mechanic from the sorcerer and wizard, with the spontaneous casters having a small spells known list learned automatically, and the prepared casters having a 'spell book' that they filled as they went with new rites and rituals, hymns and songs and stories and spells and prayers to their god. The 'spell book' be a prayer book, or a codex of spells, or a sheaf of collected sheet music detailing all your bardic spells, or a collection of rune-inscribed sticks with ogham runes depicting the various druid rites you've mastered. No more getting every cleric or druid spell that came out, either you had the small fixed list of a spontaneous caster (which would also automatically include whatever spells you channel spontaneously, cure wounds, inflict wounds or summon nature's ally, and your various domain spells), *or* have to acquire and scribe them and add them to his 'spell book' like a wizard (again, automatically including the spells on their 'channel automatically' list, or their domains, so still, a *slight* advantage over a sorcerer or wizard, if not 'every spell, ever').
But CoDzilla never really felt like a thing in PF, and I'm not seeing the need for it now.
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.
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.
Classic part where you cite the example that backs you up without the rest of the text.
Classic part where you cite the example that backs you up without the rest of the text.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.
You mean the "or from other spells to which you gain access" part?
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.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of things which grant Access: the common rarity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of things which grant Access: the common rarity.
Yeah, if common rarity isn't common then why is it common? Now we have common [core] and common [APG] and Common [Secrets of Magic], ect?
Another example of things which grant Access: the common rarity.Yeah, if common rarity isn't common then why is it common? Now we have common [core] and common [APG] and Common [Secrets of Magic], ect?
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?
Access does not mean you have it. And it never has. The fact that people misread the rules, or were ignorant of them, does not change that fact.
The game's rules and definitions are exactly the same as they were before the clarification. The only thing that changed was the realization that those same people were mistaken in their beliefs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?
Maybe because you don't get automatic equipment?
Access does not mean you have it. Never has.
It does for spells. "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. The feature allows you to prepare spells you can access: how if THAT different from buying weapons you have access to? The feature doesn't say you can prepare spells you have access to AND pay for... The feature requires access only so it's not the same as gaining equipment: you have to be able to find the spell but buying requires the other step not required for a spell.
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?Maybe because you don't get automatic equipment?
Access does not mean you have it. Never has.It does for spells. "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. The feature allows you to prepare spells you can access: how if THAT different from buying weapons you have access to? The feature doesn't say you can prepare spells you have access to AND pay for... The feature requires access only so it's not the same as gaining equipment: you have to be able to find the spell but buying requires the other step not required for a spell.
As I said, we've always interpreted that as being a reference to spells not normally on your tradition list.
As many posters have alreadyindicated, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one makes sense and the other doesn't, then odds are the interpretation that makes sense is the correct one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, we've always interpreted that as being a reference to spells not normally on your tradition list.
As many haves stated, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one makes sense and the other doesn't, then odds are the interpretation that makes sense is the correct one.
*shrug* makes perfect sense to me though: just like a katana might shift from uncommon to common in tian, spells in other books might get shifted too by a DM so a future common tian spell might be ruled uncommon for a saga lands game. So core books common can be seen as 100% always available while other book commons might not: Makes sense with the DM empowerment focus.
*shrug* makes perfect sense to me though: just like a katana might shift from uncommon to common in tian, spells in other books might get shifted too by a DM so a future common tian spell might be ruled uncommon for a saga lands game. So core books common can be seen as 100% always available while other book commons might not: Makes sense with the DM empowerment focus.As I said, we've always interpreted that as being a reference to spells not normally on your tradition list.
As many haves stated, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one makes sense and the other doesn't, then odds are the interpretation that makes sense is the correct one.
I can see that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one makes sense and the other doesn't, then odds are the interpretation that makes sense is the correct one.
While I agree with this premise, the interpretation that effectively creates two different definitions of "common" is the one that stands out to me as not making sense.
If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one makes sense and the other doesn't, then odds are the interpretation that makes sense is the correct one.While I agree with this premise, the interpretation that effectively creates two different definitions of "common" is the one that stands out to me as not making sense.
That's sensible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters gain access to a myriad of Common weapons, but they still need to pay for them. How is this any different?Another example of things which grant Access: the common rarity.Yeah, if common rarity isn't common then why is it common? Now we have common [core] and common [APG] and Common [Secrets of Magic], ect?
Do fighters automatically get one of every Common weapon in the CRB for free? They'd have to in order to be analogous to clerics getting spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would a barrier to accessing a Common thing even look like?
A new Common weapon can just as readily be purchased as any CRB one, as can any other Common item, including a scroll of a new Common spell.
Sounds like access to me.
So what does it take to gain access to a Common thing?
"This rarity (Common) indicates that an ability, item, or spell is available to all players who meet the prerequisites for it."
Also sounds like access to me.
Do the non-CRB Common spells have prerequisites? None that I know of.
So by the game's definition, all players have all Common options available if they meet the criteria specific to that option (if any).
I suppose in PFS one could say owning the book is a prereq, though that's also the case for all items & mechanics alongside those spells anyway.
I also will grant that a campaign set in an isolated setting might have issues, yet that's due to Common things being shifted to Uncommon, not an alteration in what Common means (like the new interpretation seems to be suggesting).
So I don't get why PFS is making a point of this, when the rules lead right back to these spells being available. Sure, one's class doesn't give access to non-CRB spells, but you know what does? Them being Common spells. That's in the rules too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from the common spells issue, do Clerics and Druids not already rely on spell books when learning / preparing uncommon or rare spells?
The problem as always is seemingly conflicting information:
...If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it’s added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells...
Carefully maintained and jealously guarded, there are few things more valuable to a wizard than a spellbook. These repositories of magical lore are often trapped and warded to ensure that no one meddles with the secrets inside. Although spellbooks play a central role in a wizard’s daily routine, other prepared spellcasting classes have been known to use spellbooks to record uncommon or even rare spells. Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.
Or are those just alternative ways of being able to prepare a uncommon or rare spell, e.g. either learn it and add it to your own list OR just prepare it out of a spellbook instead?
Oh no, clerics and druids don’t get everything for free. /s
Some characters get free items at creation, everyone has to pay for more items. Clerics and druids get a nice number of free spells known at creation, everyone has to pay for more spells known.
I think Earthfall makes a perfectly valid point.
People who believed in the interpretation that it was all free were the ones creating exceptions to the rules, not Paizo.
Paizo's clarification falls in line with the rules and with all the other class paradigms.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's clarification falls in line with the rules and with all the other class paradigms.
It's a PFS clarification, not a Paizo clarification. Those aren't equivalent things. And as I've said above, I don't thing the 'pay' arguments are really relevant: cost has no bearing on Common Access and that the change would require a tiered/nested Common Trait, say Sort-of-Common, where some Commons are treated differently than other Commons not because of the setting and how common it is but because of it's location in the rules...
It's not what I'd call keeping it simple.