| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics and druids start with a “spellbook” that includes the whole CRB. They have to learn spells from other books just like wizards and witches.Cool story bro. Except, Clerics and Druids don't have spellbook entries in their class, so this argument just fails. Even a Polymath Bard has more spellbook than those clowns, which is ironic considering a Bard has almost no use for that other than what the feat actually gives them.
Did you miss the punctuation? The quotes are right there. The cleric and druid have a metaphorical spellbook consisting of the spells they have access to. That can be expanded by using the Learn a Spell activity. This gives them a nice advantage, but not one that increases with every new publication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, spontaneous spellcasters have more options to pick from, but giving that same benefit to prepared spellcasters doesn't make them that much more powerful, if at all. They are still limited by A. being required to prepare the spell, B. knowing how many they want/need to prepare, and C. weighing it against other options against potential enemies or obstacles. And for those with a spellbook, it still costs getting it learned, plus a check to be able to learn it in the first place. Plenty of comparative sacrifices already in place to balance this debacle out, where spontaneous spellcasters don't have spellbooks which limit their choices of spell selection based on learned spells, can freely heighten certain spells to suit their needs, and don't have to worry about having the right amount of a spell memorized or on a consumable.
This limitation just means they do not gain any more options compared to other prepared spellcasters, like a Wizard who gets spells beyond 1st level to know past Core options, and the Witch who can pick any common spell from any source. If we already have prepared spellcasters being able to gain those options, what...
If you're going to reply to me, it would be nice respond to something I said. Why quote me?
Clerics and Druids already get access to their entire list--a nice advantage over Wizards and Witches. They get even more of a boost as that list grows (which also makes them harder to play). Is that okay? Probably at this point, but establishing a limit by default makes sense.
And it's actually the Cleric and Druid who can get access to the extra spells by Learning a Spell. Wizards and Witches get a couple for free (but, y'know, far less than the Cleric and Druid do).
Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn't read my response or don't understand it in regards to you saying that it's totally acceptable for prepared spellcasters to get the shaft compared to spontaneous spellcasters in this edition. No point in asking which one it is, the result doesn't matter, since I'll have to go more in-depth with each response you've given to make it more apparent for you.
Except by RAW they actually don't. Anything Uncommon+ or non-Core is off limits unless they gain access to it in some fashion. Common spells from non-Core sources are actually not Common options for them at all, simply because the rules have outright declared it as such, even though by a casual reading, it doesn't look that way. This game's been out for 2 years now, and it's just now being brought up as a topic? Crazy how that works.
As for making it harder for them to play, it really doesn't. What makes an APG spell or a Lost Omens spell a superior choice to a Core spell if everything is so tightly balanced that new options both will not invalidate existing options, but also expand onto new options that players may want to explore instead? Nothing, except circumstance and playstyle. And that's exactly the kind of way new options are meant to ingratiate themselves into this system. A Harm spell at 5th level is powerful as a 9th or 10th level character, but useless in certain circumstances. Fighting Undead or Constructs? No dice. Literally. A Wall of Flesh, however, would be useful against both them and other creatures, and could be equally thematic and useful for the character on the whole. But we're going to deny it because the rules won't let Clerics and Druids have nice things. Gotcha.
And a limit is already established. Is that not what the Rarity system is for? To make things not available unless Access is fulfilled or the GM permits these things in the world? I mean, I thought those rules were junk and overly repetitive anyway, but I didn't think it would catch on this fast, if at all. Plus, a GM is enabled by RAW to change that Rarity system to suit their needs. Maybe metal weapons are Uncommon in this setting. Or Create Food/Water spells are Rare because this is a setting where the Material Plane is dying out. Maybe teleportation is more accessible now that magical travel is stabilized in yet another setting. Maybe the AP takes place in an area where Firearms are Common. Or, a GM can just meta-game and say "Core only folks, no APG or Lost Omens shenanigans," bypassing Rarity entirely. All of these things are possible and enforceable well before class entries add insult to injury.
Witch and Wizard spellcasting is balanced around a spellbook (or "spellbook" for the Witch). Cleric and Druid spellcasting is not. Imposing a spellbook-like restriction on classes not designed for it seems far less likely to be intended than even Bard spellcasting, which is spontaneous, being balanced around a spellbook, where it is optional for them via feats. Not even Clerics or Druids get that kind of optionality in their class write-ups, so suggesting that it's fine or acceptable for them to devolve to spellbook-tier spellcasting is ludicrous. Because I'll tell you what, when Sorcerers, Witches, and now Summoners are casting the same spell lists as Clerics and Druids, there's no reason for those 3 to also not be restricted to spellbook-tier spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you miss the punctuation? The quotes are right there. The cleric and druid have a metaphorical spellbook consisting of the spells they have access to. That can be expanded by using the Learn a Spell activity. This gives them a nice advantage, but not one that increases with every new publication.Clerics and druids start with a “spellbook” that includes the whole CRB. They have to learn spells from other books just like wizards and witches.Cool story bro. Except, Clerics and Druids don't have spellbook entries in their class, so this argument just fails. Even a Polymath Bard has more spellbook than those clowns, which is ironic considering a Bard has almost no use for that other than what the feat actually gives them.
Presence or absence of punctuation does not change my point. You're treating Clerics and Druids as spellbook-like casters when they're not, and never were. Their spellcasting tradition was actually the sole reason why they weren't, which is now BS when you consider Divine Sorcerers and Primal Witches walk Golarion. Shouldn't they likewise be equally limited in spell selection, since they are of the same traditions? They should, especially if balance, the same reason we want Clerics and Druids to be spellbook-like, is such an important factor here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should, especially if balance, the same reason we want Clerics and Druids to be spellbook-like, is such an important factor here.
I mean, if we were really motivated by balance here we'd probably just want to scrap the "automatically know spells" mechanic entirely. As is the druid essentially gets for free what it would take that primal witch tens of thousands of gold and weeks of downtime to match and the druid has a better chassis anyways so it's not like there's a good reason the Witch has to pay so much to catch up.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn't read my response or don't understand it in regards to you saying that it's totally acceptable for prepared spellcasters to get the shaft compared to spontaneous spellcasters in...
That's really your response to a quote of me pointing out that you quoted me without responding once already?
Clerics and Druids get their entire core list, which is an excellent feature that is better than a spellbook. Either respond to this point or don't.
Common spells from non-Core sources are actually not Common options for them at all, simply because the rules have outright declared it as such, even though by a casual reading, it doesn't look that way. This game's been out for 2 years now, and it's just now being brought up as a topic? Crazy how that works.
They're still common. They're just not free. Those are two different things.
And it's been brought up before.s for making it harder for them to play, it really doesn't. What makes an APG spell or a Lost Omens spell a superior choice to a Core spell if everything is so tightly balanced that new options both will not invalidate existing options, but also expand onto new options that players may want to explore instead?
Keeping track of 20 spells and making a list from them each day is harder than 10. Come on now.
Shouldn't they likewise be equally limited in spell selection, since they are of the same traditions? They should, especially if balance, the same reason we want Clerics and Druids to be spellbook-like, is such an important factor here.
Did you... forget what you were arguing for?
...wait, are you suggesting that Sorcerer and Witch (restricted spells) "should be" as restricted as the Cleric and Druid (large list for free)? Because I read that the other way around. Since that would, y'know, make sense.
Picking up a few you want isn't the same as getting the entire list for free. And then also that other entire list for free. And then also that next entire list for free. And then also...
I don't see the issue at all: if it's an issue of those bad PCs, that are specifically "running roughshod" over the poor DM, the amount of spells are totally meaningless for that argument. IF the intent is to prevent PCs from abusing their DM with unexpected interactions, they can specifically pick out those spells, buy the scrolls and have their ultra, mega, super "running roughshod" over the DM combo: nothing is solved.
Now if it's an issue of knowing the spells... I still don't see it. With the number of spells in JUST the core, the DM is going to have to reference back to the spells for the exact details for individual spells they don't use all the time. I mean, off the top of your head, what exactly are the mechanics of Retrocognition and it's heightened affects? How is that different from, say, Scintillating Safeguard? Why does it being in the APG matter in the least as you have to look up both. Inventing a new sub-tier of Common, IMO, removes the entire point of having rarity by making a paradoxical category of uncommon Common's. :P
They should, especially if balance, the same reason we want Clerics and Druids to be spellbook-like, is such an important factor here.I mean, if we were really motivated by balance here we'd probably just want to scrap the "automatically know spells" mechanic entirely. As is the druid essentially gets for free what it would take that primal witch tens of thousands of gold and weeks of downtime to match and the druid has a better chassis anyways so it's not like there's a good reason the Witch has to pay so much to catch up.
And that's the point I'm making. This very thing wasn't done for 2 reasons. 1. The spell lists are already balanced around the original casting styles, and 2. Legacy rules which were carried over because of class identity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn't read my response or don't understand it in regards to you saying that it's totally acceptable for prepared spellcasters to get the shaft compared to spontaneous spellcasters in...That's really your response to a quote of me pointing out that you quoted me without responding once already?
Clerics and Druids get their entire core list, which is an excellent feature that is better than a spellbook. Either respond to this point or don't.
Common spells from non-Core sources are actually not Common options for them at all, simply because the rules have outright declared it as such, even though by a casual reading, it doesn't look that way. This game's been out for 2 years now, and it's just now being brought up as a topic? Crazy how that works.They're still common. They're just not free. Those are two different things.
And it's been brought up before.s for making it harder for them to play, it really doesn't. What makes an APG spell or a Lost Omens spell a superior choice to a Core spell if everything is so tightly balanced that new options both will not invalidate existing options, but also expand onto new options that players may want to explore instead?Keeping track of 20 spells and making a list from them each day is harder than 10. Come on now.
Shouldn't they likewise be equally limited in spell selection, since they are of the same traditions? They should, especially if balance, the same reason we want Clerics and Druids to be spellbook-like, is such an important factor here.Did you... forget what you were arguing for?
...wait, are you suggesting that Sorcerer and Witch (restricted spells) "should be" as restricted as the Cleric and Druid (large list for free)? Because I read that the other way around. Since that would, y'know, make sense.
As more material gets published, that statement becomes less and less true, and the Spontaneous Spellcasters prove this. I even said as much, but you decided it was a strawman.
Then they don't actually get their entire spell list. False advertising is false. The identity of the classes has now changed for the worse as a result of this asterisk.
Spontaneous versus Prepared is not that cut and dry. Weeding through 3 or 4 spells out of hundreds for a given level is not much less daunting than doing so for a given adventuring day. Both will suffer from Decision Paralysis in some manner, if this Core only shenanigans is meant to prevent that, then it has failed it's intended task.
Picking up a few you want isn't the same as getting the entire list for free. And then also that other entire list for free. And then also that next entire list for free. And then also...I don't see the issue at all: if it's an issue of those bad PCs, that are specifically "running roughshod" over the poor DM, the amount of spells are totally meaningless for that argument. IF the intent is to prevent PCs from abusing their DM with unexpected interactions, they can specifically pick out those spells, buy the scrolls and have their ultra, mega, super "running roughshod" over the DM combo: nothing is solved.
Do you not even tell your GM what you plan to purchase? Both purchasing and learning a spell give the GM a heads up on what to expect.
Do you not even tell your GM what you plan to purchase? Both purchasing and learning a spell give the GM a heads up on what to expect.Picking up a few you want isn't the same as getting the entire list for free. And then also that other entire list for free. And then also that next entire list for free. And then also...I don't see the issue at all: if it's an issue of those bad PCs, that are specifically "running roughshod" over the poor DM, the amount of spells are totally meaningless for that argument. IF the intent is to prevent PCs from abusing their DM with unexpected interactions, they can specifically pick out those spells, buy the scrolls and have their ultra, mega, super "running roughshod" over the DM combo: nothing is solved.
If it's a common option, they shouldn't have to tell them squat. The rules already permit them as having access to the item, and that the gold the players have is adequate enough for the purchase.
At best they might have to explain to the GM that they are spending downtime on the Learn a Spell activity, which requires a check for the GM to oversee and approve, but outside of the check, no.
"I bought a scroll of a common spell in town so I can perform the Learn a Spell activity and learn it for my spell list" is all you need to tell the GM. Once the GM has to assume the players are wrong, bad, or trying to game the system, that's an out-of-game problem, not an in-game problem, where, say, instead of trying to buy the scroll, they decide to haggle or steal it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you not even tell your GM what you plan to purchase? Both purchasing and learning a spell give the GM a heads up on what to expect.
Sure I tell them "I'm buying some COMMON spell scrolls". When the DM says 'you can buy anything common but ask me for anything else', I assume that means everything common. I mean that IS the point of the rarity system isn't it?
"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).": this means the game itself expect every PC to be able to access every common element. A DM would have to explicitly disallow a PC from taking them.
But, if the DM wants to micromanage every common purchase, they too could micromanage every spell learned too so... What's exactly is the point of the limitation? Where is the "running roughshod"? Honesty, I don't get the argument for DM's needing a specific prohibition of non-core common spells learned at level up because of how dangerous that is because they need the protecting while by the same token while in the same breathe make the exact same spells completely accessible to buy.
What is it about learned spells that require different access than buying scrolls is the question.
You missed the point. Communication is not for the GM to say “no”, but to be aware of what the party is capable of or interested in doing.
You missed the point. Communication is not for the GM to say “no”, but to be aware of what the party is capable of or interested in doing.
Yeah, so the GM can say "no," to the players doing something the GM doesn't want or isn't rules legal. Nice try, buddy.
You missed the point.
When was that ever the point? The point is that some are suggesting that the game NEEDS rules to protect DM's from new spells coming out in one section [learning spells] and DOESN'T need them in another [buying scrolls]. Communication is EXACTLY the same for both, so it's a moot and irrelevant point in the argument. If one can 'get one over', or "running roughshod", over the DM at the learning a spell stage then NOTHING changes when we move to the buy an item stage: either the poor DM should need protection in both cases or neither as it doesn't make much sense otherwise.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So brass tacks here. The biggest point of contention I see is that the core classes reference the CRB's list of divine whatever tradition spells when speaking about spells that you can choose at level up.
This is almost a good argument, excepting the second part of that same sentence, "...or from other divine spells to which you gain access."
So the question becomes, what determines Access?
Access Entries indicates that characters generally have access to any options that they qualify for, whether that is through ancestry, class or some other metric. But to really understand how to apply Access to your games, I recommend reading through the "using rarity and access" sidebar in the "Published Adventures" section.
The rarity system has two purposes: to convey how common or rare certain spells, creatures, or items are in the game world, and to give you an easy tool to control the complexity of your game. Uncommon and rare options aren’t more powerful than other options of their level, but they introduce complications for certain types of stories, or are less common in the world. For instance, it might be more challenging to run a mystery adventure when a player can cast an uncommon spell such as detect evil.
At the start of the campaign, communicate your preferred expectations on rarity to the players. Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class. By default, a character who tries hard enough might eventually find an uncommon option, whereas a rare option is always a special reward. Beyond that baseline, you can grant access as freely as you want; some GMs open up all uncommon and rare options universally. If you’re not sure, just look over any uncommon or rare elements before you include them as rewards or otherwise allow a player to acquire them.
So generally speaking, for the purposes of adding spells at level up, players are assumed to have ready access to spells that are;
1. Of Common Rarity2. One that the GM allows access to
That is the end of the stipulations. If a character wants access to an Uncommon or Rare option, then that character would have to jump through some hoops like finding a scroll of that particular spell, or finding someone/thing to teach it to them using the Learn a Spell activity. That is unless the GM decides that the option in question happens to be Common within their game world, in which case they could pick it at level up just fine.
The GM decides in other words. I see no reason to make it more complicated than that.
|
The Scroll Trickster represents another example of Spells being offered from the Core Rulebook ONLY, and interestingly enough, this was printed in the APG so the idea that Paizo is intentionally trying to point the Core as being a kind of definitive balanced list to gain spells from has further precedent.
... Each day during your daily preparations, you can create a single temporary scroll containing a 1st-level spell. The spell must be a common spell from the Core Rulebook, or another spell you learned via Learn a Spell, and it must come from a tradition in which you have the corresponding skill trained...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Scroll Trickster represents another example of Spells being offered from the Core Rulebook ONLY, and interestingly enough, this was printed in the APG so the idea that Paizo is intentionally trying to point the Core as being a kind of definitive balanced list to gain spells from has further precedent.
... Each day during your daily preparations, you can create a single temporary scroll containing a 1st-level spell. The spell must be a common spell from the Core Rulebook, or another spell you learned via Learn a Spell, and it must come from a tradition in which you have the corresponding skill trained...
Yikes.
Not only does this confirm my initial thoughts, but it also means that everyone arguing the other side is wrong, and that every spell option outside of Core Rulebook must be learned if you are a prepared spellcaster. Except for Witch, because I guess they have a bad enough class chassis that they can get away with it?
Still bad, still lame, still an unnecessary barrier when Rarity and GM FIAT already exist.
I think that the purpose of this was specifically to stop the automatic ballooning of cleric and druid prep lists, and that the wizards with their spellbooks got hit as collateral damage. Limiting clerics and druids to a list that doesn't automatically have everything at least serves the purpose of not creating a massive overload of option paralysis for new players trying to get through each daily preparation. (Obviously whether that's enough of a problem for these kind of measures to be taken to address it is something people can and will have different takes on).
The Scroll Trickster represents another example of Spells being offered from the Core Rulebook ONLY, and interestingly enough, this was printed in the APG so the idea that Paizo is intentionally trying to point the Core as being a kind of definitive balanced list to gain spells from has further precedent.
... Each day during your daily preparations, you can create a single temporary scroll containing a 1st-level spell. The spell must be a common spell from the Core Rulebook, or another spell you learned via Learn a Spell, and it must come from a tradition in which you have the corresponding skill trained...
Note the different language. "or another spell you learned via Learn a Spell" is not the same as "or from other [your tradition here] spells you gain access to."
This quote merely shows that Paizo sometimes limits spells to what's in the core rulebook. Everyone I've seen arguing that you can take other spells as well, myself included, has conceded that if the sentence ended after mentioning the core rulebook, then that would be all that's allowed, but it goes on to mention other spells you gain access to. If anything this proves that Paizo is aware of the differences between the two sentences quoted above and consciously chose to use different language in this case.
The argument on both sides is unchanged by this line from the APG, as neither side's argument revolved around whether or not Paizo may want to limit spells. The question is around whether they did or not. Well... I say that, but I guess some people have been making arguments related to balance, but that's completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, since this is a rules thread, not a general thread.
I think that the purpose of this was specifically to stop the automatic ballooning of cleric and druid prep lists, and that the wizards with their spellbooks got hit as collateral damage. Limiting clerics and druids to a list that doesn't automatically have everything at least serves the purpose of not creating a massive overload of option paralysis for new players trying to get through each daily preparation. (Obviously whether that's enough of a problem for these kind of measures to be taken to address it is something people can and will have different takes on).
It's still a problem that affect Spontaneous spellcasters as well, since it's not unlike Spells Known ballooning up for them. That's just the nature of having new content with each book. What's Paizo gonna do, just release Core, Beastiary 1, and GMG, and just abandon the system for something else because new players can't handle new options?
I really don't think product bloat should be an excuse to make Core-Only gameplay become RAW. GMs can already enforce this at their tables by limiting resources to Core-Only anyway. Making it RAW is just plain stupid when you already have RAW that gives GMs that power anyway, with GMs maybe not wanting to limit content to Core-Only.
The Scroll Trickster represents another example of Spells being offered from the Core Rulebook ONLY, and interestingly enough, this was printed in the APG so the idea that Paizo is intentionally trying to point the Core as being a kind of definitive balanced list to gain spells from has further precedent.
... Each day during your daily preparations, you can create a single temporary scroll containing a 1st-level spell. The spell must be a common spell from the Core Rulebook, or another spell you learned via Learn a Spell, and it must come from a tradition in which you have the corresponding skill trained...Yikes.
Not only does this confirm my initial thoughts, but it also means that everyone arguing the other side is wrong, and that every spell option outside of Core Rulebook must be learned if you are a prepared spellcaster. Except for Witch, because I guess they have a bad enough class chassis that they can get away with it?
Still bad, still lame, still an unnecessary barrier when Rarity and GM FIAT already exist.
Yeah, not really seeing the issue here. It's a specific ability that uses different wording entirely from the noted previous examples to be More specific than those. That doesn't mean that it invalidates the wording or meaning of the previously sited sources in any way, only that Scroll Tricksters particularly are more limited in the spells they can choose.
Until and unless Paizo decides to go back and errata the core classes, and by extension the Witch since they don't contain any mention of the CRB at all, to use the same wording you can't really apply this to those classes with any honesty.
Unless it is your opinion that Witch's are JUST superior prepared casters compared to CRB prepared casters, given their ready access to whichever spells they like.
Each time you gain a level, your patron teaches your familiar two new spells of any level you can cast, chosen from common spells of your tradition or others you gain access to.
I would also point out that this limitation makes some sense when looked at within the context of the Scroll Trickster. You aren't a traditional caster, you are someone who uses rote knowledge to replace actual magical talent, hence the use of the Trick Magic Item feat being core to the Archetype.
The benefit of the Scroll Trickster is that they can access the CRB Spells of ANY tradition that they have training in the knowledge skill of. And they still have the option of learning new spells, or just using found scrolls of non-CRB spells on top of being able to create their limited use free scrolls.
TLDR: Apples to Oranges of the highest level.
Edit: If anything, the Existence of this more limited wording Proves mine and others point, that the CRB casters are NOT limited to CRB Spells, since if that were the case, they would simply use the same limiting wording of the Scroll Trickster. Which they don't.