1) When a Wizard is first rolled and selects spells for their spellbook it says, "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."
Specifically, "from this book". I assume they can choose any level 1 common-rarity spell regardless of its source... provided it is listed as being the Arcane tradition.
2) It later says, "Each time you gain a level, you add two arcane spells to your spellbook, of any level for which you have spell slots."
No mention of rarity. So, when a wizard levels up and adds 2 more spells to their spell book, can they be of any rarity and from any source? I assume this is not the case and it follows the same rules as when first creating the spellbook, but would like to confirm.
Thank you.
|
1) They mean the Core Rulebook and the Core Rulebook only. The same thing applies to other Prepared Spellcasters such as Cleric and Druid even though they don't need a Spellbook. Whenever "in this book" is listed in a class it is meant to be read literally.
2) You are not limited by the source unless you see the "in this book" text for anything else.
Rarity is weird honestly, and while the starting spells DO indicate they MUST be Common, the Spell you add from Advancement is not so limited but no matter what you STILL need to be given "Access" to anything that is not Common, in other words, this rule doesn't permit you to skip the Rarity restrictions but it also does not prevent the PC from adding non-Common Spells during level up if they have been granted "Access" to said Spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Prepared Spellcasters can only start with Core-specific spells, whereas Spontaneous Spellcasters can pull from any source with their first level spells?
That seems unnecessarily limiting and tedious.
Prepared casters could purchase a scroll of a common spell from another book and use it to have had the opportunity to have done a Learn a Spell activity.
According to GM's ruling that might, given you the opportunity to count as you having access to the spell for your initial count (using up one of your spell counts), allow you to have the spell without needing to roll but it being an additional spell, or potentially give you the opportunity to do a free Learn a Spell roll pre-start of adventure, but subject to a chance of failing to learn it. Last of course, you can at the start of the adventure, start with a Learn a Spell activity with the spell.
Or you can also simply ask the GM if you can include a specific spell in your first list, even it it isn't from the Core book.
And actually, it is somewhat reasonable for the spontaneous caster to have a little of an edge there since they are hard-limited on the number of spells they can access at a time. [i.e. spontaneous casters are less long-term flexible]
So, not that we have any right now, but if a spell were to be flagged uncommon but also given an Elf trait, would that indicate that the spell would be accessible to elves?
So Prepared Spellcasters can only start with Core-specific spells, whereas Spontaneous Spellcasters can pull from any source with their first level spells?
That seems unnecessarily limiting and tedious.
I don't think the Witch has this issue and it's a prepared spellcaster. They just care about the spells being common and its tradition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Witch has this issue and it's a prepared spellcaster. They just care about the spells being common and its tradition.So Prepared Spellcasters can only start with Core-specific spells, whereas Spontaneous Spellcasters can pull from any source with their first level spells?
That seems unnecessarily limiting and tedious.
That just makes the problem even worse, because that means Witches can select spells at 1st level that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can't. The Power Creep is real.
But if the text did carry over, then it'd only be able to select APG spells, which is probably a far worse situation. That's beside the point, though, which is that this limitation feels needlessly arbitrary and does nothing but put those classes down more than they already should.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared casters could purchase a scroll of a common spell from another book and use it to have had the opportunity to have done a Learn a Spell activity.
According to GM's ruling that might, given you the opportunity to count as you having access to the spell for your initial count (using up one of your spell counts), allow you to have the spell without needing to roll but it being an additional spell, or potentially give you the opportunity to do a free Learn a Spell roll pre-start of adventure, but subject to a chance of failing to learn it. Last of course, you can at the start of the adventure, start with a Learn a Spell activity with the spell.
Or you can also simply ask the GM if you can include a specific spell in your first list, even it it isn't from the Core book.
And actually, it is somewhat reasonable for the spontaneous caster to have a little of an edge there since they are hard-limited on the number of spells they can access at a time. [i.e. spontaneous casters are less long-term flexible]
So, not that we have any right now, but if a spell were to be flagged uncommon but also given an Elf trait, would that indicate that the spell would be accessible to elves?
This assumes a GM is going to permit downtime at the beginning of an adventure. Not going to happen. Maybe after the beginning, there might be some, but probably not enough to make this tactic feasible. Throw in some Magical Shorthand, and we might have something, but that requires levels and training, which we don't have, so...
Furthermore, I shouldn't have to tax my starting gold value to get access to a spell that another class or another casting type doesn't have to, because...reasons? It's pointlessly arbitrary, and it creates silly situations like this:
Arcane Witch: Can I get Befuddle as one of my 1st level spells?
GM: Sure! Absolutely! That's totally cool and awesome that you're grabbing a spell that we've never really seen be used before!
Wizard: Can I get Animate Dead as one of my 1st level spells?
GM: No! You don't get to choose spells from that book! You're not cool like the Witch is, you're just a boring regular run-of-the-mill Wizard who doesn't get nice things like Witches do!
Wizard: But I'm a necromancer...I want to Raise Undead to do my bidding. I literally have Necromancy as my Arcane School! *glares at Arcane Witch of Baba Yaga with Befuddle spell available*
GM: Nope, too bad. You're a smelly stinking Wizard, you don't get spells outside of the Core Rulebook to start with. Paizo said so. Stick to your basics of arcane magic, normie Wizard.
Yes, the Wizard can choose their level-up spells from any of the tradition they have access to, but if that's the case, why do we have this restriction here at 1st level when other classes that prepare spells don't have to? It might make more sense if the restriction was for any spell learned whatsoever, but it's literally for just the 1st level and no other level.
It would make no sense for a Spell to have an Ancestry trait. It would be Uncommon, with maybe an Access line that states "You have the Elf trait" or something. But that's not the reason why certain spells from other books are being denied. They are being denied simply because they are from a different source, which should have no bearing on spell choice, when other classes don't have that limitation.
It also says "...or from other arcane spells you gain access to." You should automatically gain access to common spells from other books.
In the end, it's really all up to the GM what spells you can get.
Access in this case refers to the Rarity system.
Yes, a GM can run a Core Only campaign, but that's not what Access would refer to in regards to the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While yes RAW you can only choose from CRB spells, I dont see any reason why. APG or other spells are not any more powerful.
That's exactly my point. Especially if it's a limitation put only on 3 specific classes, when other classes that can cast spells don't have that restriction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the "or from other arcane spells you gain access to." refers to the access system as it is not capitalized. Remember that "The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized." Emphasize mine. If they mean Access system, I'd expect access to be capitalized.
The way I read "other arcane spells you gain access to" should likely refer to common arcane spells in other books. Of course the GM can limit this as they see fit, but if they allow classes from other books, I would anticipate that common arcane spells from said book are also allowed.
I disagree that the "or from other arcane spells you gain access to." refers to the access system as it is not capitalized. Remember that "The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized." Emphasize mine. If they mean Access system, I'd expect access to be capitalized.
The way I read "other arcane spells you gain access to" should likely refer to common arcane spells in other books. Of course the GM can limit this as they see fit, but if they allow classes from other books, I would anticipate that common arcane spells from said book are also allowed.
They are very poor in doing this, often using capitalized and non-capitalized words interchangeably. As such, I agree with you it SHOULD be as you say but have to disagree that's how it plays out.
For instance, take the Ancestral Weaponry feat: "Prerequisites Monastic Weaponry; a feat granting access to all weapons with an ancestry trait (such as elf or orc)
You blend monastic techniques with the ancestral fighting styles of your people. Choose an ancestry for which you have access to all weapons with that trait." As you can see, it's clearly referencing the access system but not capitalizing it. In fact, the only time I see it capitalized is when it's talking specifically about an "Access entry".
I disagree that the "or from other arcane spells you gain access to." refers to the access system as it is not capitalized. Remember that "The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized." Emphasize mine. If they mean Access system, I'd expect access to be capitalized.
The way I read "other arcane spells you gain access to" should likely refer to common arcane spells in other books. Of course the GM can limit this as they see fit, but if they allow classes from other books, I would anticipate that common arcane spells from said book are also allowed.
They are very poor in doing this, often using capitalized and non-capitalized words interchangeably. As such, I agree with you it SHOULD be as you say but have to disagree that's how it plays out.
For instance, take the Ancestral Weaponry feat: "Prerequisites Monastic Weaponry; a feat granting access to all weapons with an ancestry trait (such as elf or orc)
You blend monastic techniques with the ancestral fighting styles of your people. Choose an ancestry for which you have access to all weapons with that trait." As you can see, it's clearly referencing the access system but not capitalizing it. In fact, the only time I see it capitalized is when it's talking specifically about an "Access entry".
That is fair. It is used inconsistently, which proves problematic. I am sure we could go through many examples, but for the specific example you bring up, I think the clarify is the specific way it is phrased. Granting access, seems to reference the Access system. Though it should probably be written "granting Access".
That being said, I'd rather look at the text as is and apply the formatting rules, and then decide if I think there is a problem. For the adding spells to spell books at first level, I think the capitalized access is correct, while Ancestral Weaponry feat might be done incorrectly.
That just makes the problem even worse, because that means Witches can select spells at 1st level that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can't. The Power Creep is real.
That is a pretty drastic overstatement in regards to the wizard. Being limited to CRB spells for character creation isn't that dire -laughs-. Probably doesn't need to be there for the wizard though.
Clerics/Druids on the other hand, them being limited to CRB spells for all of their free spells at every level is really healthy for the game and I am glad paizo did it. It ensures both the GM and player will have a reasonable knowledge of what spells the character has and removes the real power creep that would be seen with future book releases.
Plus, if a character wants a common spell the learn a spell activity is pretty cheap and it gives an excuse for both characters to spend downtime on their class.
PF1e was a nightmare when it came to cleric/druid prep. Near 200 spells per level for the first few levels.
That just makes the problem even worse, because that means Witches can select spells at 1st level that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can't. The Power Creep is real.That is a pretty drastic overstatement in regards to the wizard. Being limited to CRB spells for character creation isn't that dire -laughs-. Probably doesn't need to be there for the wizard though.
Clerics/Druids on the other hand, them being limited to CRB spells for all of their free spells at every level is really healthy for the game and I am glad paizo did it. It ensures both the GM and player will have a reasonable knowledge of what spells the character has and removes the real power creep that would be seen with future book releases.
Plus, if a character wants a common spell the learn a spell activity is pretty cheap and it gives an excuse for both characters to spend downtime on their class.PF1e was a nightmare when it came to cleric/druid prep. Near 200 spells per level for the first few levels.
In the grand scheme of things? Not really. By 2nd level, Wizards outgrow this problem, but reviewing the text and with your statements, Clerics and Druids never outgrow this. They are forever limited to Core only spells by RAW.
That's even worse than I thought with Druids and Clerics. I mean, I thought Wizards got the shaft since their starter 1st level spells are Core only, but now you're telling me Druids and Clerics can't prepare anything except Core spells?
Bad RAW is bad. Paizo, please fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also says "...or from other arcane spells you gain access to." You should automatically gain access to common spells from other books.
In the end, it's really all up to the GM what spells you can get.
Access in this case refers to the Rarity system.
Yes, a GM can run a Core Only campaign, but that's not what Access would refer to in regards to the rules.
According to the Gamemastery Guide, the core assumption regarding Common rules options is that you have access to them.
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).
Even if access only refered to the rarity system, the GMG makes it pretty clear a part of the assumptions made by the rarity system is that players have access to common options.
The part on Access Entries a few lines ahead that only reinforces that:
A character who meets the specifications listed there has access to that option just like they would to a common option, even though it’s uncommon
Overall, the GMG makes it fairly clear you have access (as in the rules term) to common options by default, so non-core Common spells are covered under the second clause.
Even if you ignore the GMG snippets, saying that you don't have access to Common options feels utterly nonsensical to me.
|
Even if you ignore the GMG snippets, saying that you don't have access to Common options feels utterly nonsensical to me.
My thoughts exactly, if it's common you have access, so Wizards (and by extension Clerics and Druids, but that's a whole other issue) should have access to common spells in other books. The GM can change the rarity of an option if they want, as well.
It also says "...or from other arcane spells you gain access to." You should automatically gain access to common spells from other books.
In the end, it's really all up to the GM what spells you can get.
Access in this case refers to the Rarity system.
Yes, a GM can run a Core Only campaign, but that's not what Access would refer to in regards to the rules.
According to the Gamemastery Guide, the core assumption regarding Common rules options is that you have access to them.
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).Even if access only refered to the rarity system, the GMG makes it pretty clear a part of the assumptions made by the rarity system is that players have access to common options.
The part on Access Entries a few lines ahead that only reinforces that:
A character who meets the specifications listed there has access to that option just like they would to a common option, even though it’s uncommonOverall, the GMG makes it fairly clear you have access (as in the rules term) to common options by default, so non-core Common spells are covered under the second clause.
Even if you ignore the GMG snippets, saying that you don't have access to Common options feels utterly nonsensical to me.
They don't because the rules state they only get options from one sourcebook, and no other one. This isn't because of Rarity or Access, it's because the rules literally do not allow those sourcebooks by RAW.
GMs can allow the other stuff, but that's technically houserule territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, the GMG makes it fairly clear you have access (as in the rules term) to common options by default, so non-core Common spells are covered under the second clause.
Even if you ignore the GMG snippets, saying that you don't have access to Common options feels utterly nonsensical to me.
They don't because the rules state they only get options from one sourcebook, and no other one. This isn't because of Rarity or Access, it's because the rules literally do not allow those sourcebooks by RAW.
GMs can allow the other stuff, but that's technically houserule territory.
Okaaaay, so we're just going to ignore the last half of the sentence in question, then?
"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."Notice the big or there? Implying it's talking about other spells besides the ones in the book? And if common spells aren't among the list that you gain access to, then idk what should be, because by default you gain access to common items from other books. That being said, DMs can overrule this. Especially if they don't have those sourcebooks and/or want to keep things simple.
"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."
The implication is that the second part is about non-common spells: if common here means common in every book, then there is no reason to include "in this book": it's much more likely "OR from other arcane spells you gain access to" is referring to uncommon/rare spells they have access to that to overcome the specific access it talks about when it talks about common spells.
So... let's consider what PFS does. While this doesn't necessarily dictate what happens at your individual tables...
Yes. Clerics, druids, and wizards are initially hindered compared to other classes.
"Learning Spells - Some members of the community raised questions about how their cleric and druid characters could use the new spells from the Advanced Player’s Guide. We’re happy to provide a solution! Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity."
Note that the question is raised specifically for clerics and druids - and the answer is that all prep casters have access to trainers with whom they can use Learn a Spell.
Thus, at least in PFS, "in this book" is interpreted as a clear rule.
So... let's consider what PFS does. While this doesn't necessarily dictate what happens at your individual tables...
Yes. Clerics, druids, and wizards are initially hindered compared to other classes.
"Learning Spells - Some members of the community raised questions about how their cleric and druid characters could use the new spells from the Advanced Player’s Guide. We’re happy to provide a solution! Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity."
Note that the question is raised specifically for clerics and druids - and the answer is that all prep casters have access to trainers with whom they can use Learn a Spell.
Thus, at least in PFS, "in this book" is interpreted as a clear rule.
Considering PFS has very different rules for access, I wouldn't really take this as an indication of anything.
Most of the books probably say "Add these spells to the list of spells in the core rulebook on page ..." so you can access spells from other rulebooks at character creation, in case your GM is super weird and doesn't allow it because "reasons".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, the GMG makes it fairly clear you have access (as in the rules term) to common options by default, so non-core Common spells are covered under the second clause.
Even if you ignore the GMG snippets, saying that you don't have access to Common options feels utterly nonsensical to me.
They don't because the rules state they only get options from one sourcebook, and no other one. This isn't because of Rarity or Access, it's because the rules literally do not allow those sourcebooks by RAW.
GMs can allow the other stuff, but that's technically houserule territory.
Okaaaay, so we're just going to ignore the last half of the sentence in question, then?
"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."Notice the big or there? Implying it's talking about other spells besides the ones in the book? And if common spells aren't among the list that you gain access to, then idk what should be, because by default you gain access to common items from other books. That being said, DMs can overrule this. Especially if they don't have those sourcebooks and/or want to keep things simple.
Graystone's got me covered. Access refers expressly to Rarity, and nothing else. Access lines serve as "rarity pre-requisites" that let you, by RAW, treat the option you have access to as Common for the purposes of selecting it.
Outside of GM FIAT being a factor, that's a pretty easy to understand rule. So is this one. It's just baffling that non-Core spells are considered inaccessible by default to certain classes (some just at certain levels, others entirely). And with a second errata round having been dealt to the Core Rulebook, it seems pretty obviously intended by Paizo to run spells prepared that way. Might it get errata'd later? Possibly. But I won't hold my breath for a change, as it might either reinforce the paradigm or create something even worse as a consequence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering PFS has very different rules for access, I wouldn't really take this as an indication of anything.So... let's consider what PFS does. While this doesn't necessarily dictate what happens at your individual tables...
Yes. Clerics, druids, and wizards are initially hindered compared to other classes.
"Learning Spells - Some members of the community raised questions about how their cleric and druid characters could use the new spells from the Advanced Player’s Guide. We’re happy to provide a solution! Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity."
Note that the question is raised specifically for clerics and druids - and the answer is that all prep casters have access to trainers with whom they can use Learn a Spell.
Thus, at least in PFS, "in this book" is interpreted as a clear rule.
PFS has more of a Specific Trumps General aspect when it comes to Rarity and Access: that by no means overrules the rarity aspects except where PFS lists a change in what is or isn't accessible.
It still otherwise follows the Access and Rarity rules appropriately.
Can you link the blog post where PFS leadership clarified that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... let's consider what PFS does. While this doesn't necessarily dictate what happens at your individual tables...
Yes. Clerics, druids, and wizards are initially hindered compared to other classes.
"Learning Spells - Some members of the community raised questions about how their cleric and druid characters could use the new spells from the Advanced Player’s Guide. We’re happy to provide a solution! Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity."
Note that the question is raised specifically for clerics and druids - and the answer is that all prep casters have access to trainers with whom they can use Learn a Spell.
Thus, at least in PFS, "in this book" is interpreted as a clear rule.
Yeah, no disrespect to PFS, but I wouldn't take much stock in that. I mean, take a look at what it says vs the original text. What we're allowed to use at level 1 is stuff "in this book" and spells we "gain access to", meaning everything we "gain access to" should already be available. Then it goes on to say that you can use the Learn a Spell activity to get any spells you, you guessed it: "have access to". Soooo, we have access to them, right? Yes, there's technically a difference between the words have and gain, but if we get down to that we're splitting hairs here.
Graystone's got me covered. Access refers expressly to Rarity, and nothing else. Access lines serve as "rarity pre-requisites" that let you, by RAW, treat the option you have access to as Common for the purposes of selecting it.
Let's take a look at what the base rules say about the different kinds of rarities, since we seem to agree that access is referring to the rarity system:
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).
Furthermore, under access entries we have the following:
Uncommon elements sometimes have an Access entry in their stat block. A character who meets the specifications listed there has access to that option just like they would to a common option, even though it’s uncommon. These entries include a statement such as “follower of Shelyn,” “member of the Pathfinder Society,” or “from Absalom.”
Yes, it essentially turns it common for you, but it doesn't just say that. It doesn't say you treat it as common. It says you have access to it just like you would to a common option, because we all know that access is automatically granted to common options.
If it wasn't for the line about other spells you gain access to, then I'd agree with you, and quite frankly, it's possible that the intention is to only allow for core rulebook options, but I find that hard to believe. After all, the core rulebook was written first, and isn't going to reference other sourcebooks outside of letting people know that there are other options out there for them. It's supposed to be self-sufficient. That being said, they still need to make it clear how other sourcebooks affect character options IF the DM is using those sourcebooks. Keep in mind not everyone has the APG, so saying that it's allowed by default is a bad idea. Instead, it says that you can also use any spells that you have access to. If the DM is using the APG, then, as far as I can tell, you should have access to common spells in that book based on the definition of access in the book.
Again, that might not be RAI. I can't read minds. But that's how it reads to me, and I have a really hard time understanding why people (on both sides of the debate) don't appear to be seeing how the opposite side got to their conclusion. I can understand what you're saying, but personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a fair conclusion, one that I'd prefer, but not one that the rules clearly support. It's probably the reason why PFS is ran that way, because that is an equally fair conclusion, since Access is clearly a game term here.
In that case, it's a Specific Trumps General rule, where the default common options are still limited by source material instead of mere Rarity across sources. PFS IS fully endorsed by Paizo, after all, so they might be as official as it gets, too.
It definitely creates some weird ability to learn Uncommon+ spells from other source materials, but not Common spells, but RAW would come to that conclusion.
Can you link the blog post where PFS leadership clarified that?
Yep: the Year 2 conversion / update blog.
Seems to me that it was phrased that way to keep players from running roughshod all over GMs every time a new book is released.
Sure, characters have access to common options, but players still need to okay new books and their content with the GM.
I don't see it as an error to be fixed, but an active attempt to future proof the GM's autonomy.
Seems to me that it was phrased that way to keep players from running roughshod all over GMs every time a new book is released.
Sure, characters have access to common options, but players still need to okay new books and their content with the GM.
I don't see it as an error to be fixed, but an active attempt to future proof the GM's autonomy.
Yeah, that's what seems like the best way to do it: if your GM allows a rulebook, you can prepare common spells from it. If he doesn't, you can't.
The PFS rules had to be written the way they were because PFS GMing is very different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, this feels like something that doesn't even need to be discussed. If a GM decides to run a bunch of homebrew spells that Don't happen to be in the CRB for obvious reasons, I doubt they will turn around and say that a Wizard couldn't select those spells at level up because the class entry says so.
Access at the end of the day is gated by the GM more than by the rules. Spells from any book of any rarity can be restricted according to their whims. If a GM wants to run a campaign where for whatever reason Acid Splash doesn't exist, then by golly you shouldn't expect to be able to select Acid Splash as one of your cantrips. Flip of the coin, if the GM wants you to be able to select spells from any source, then you have access to them. Pretty simple.
|
That's even worse than I thought with Druids and Clerics. I mean, I thought Wizards got the shaft since their starter 1st level spells are Core only, but now you're telling me Druids and Clerics can't prepare anything except Core spells?
Bad RAW is bad. Paizo, please fix.
That... is the point.
For a bard or a sorcerer or a wizard or an oracle or a witch, a new spell is a new character-building option. For a cleric or druid, a new spell means an individual character's versatility increases. Adding new spells to their lists makes clerics and druids more powerful, even aside from unexpected combos or power creep of the spells themselves.
I never played PF1, but this could be an issue in 3.5. Guess what houserule I implemented to address it, which is now part of the RAW in PF2?
Seems to me that it was phrased that way to keep players from running roughshod all over GMs every time a new book is released.
Sure, characters have access to common options, but players still need to okay new books and their content with the GM.
I don't see it as an error to be fixed, but an active attempt to future proof the GM's autonomy.
I thought the reason for rarity was to 'protect' the DM from questionable material. Do we really need another layer of protection? I've encountered 'core only' games, so I can't see the need to protect "GM's autonomy": if a DM wants to limit items, books, ect, the game makes it clear they can. Seems unneeded, IMO, to make multiple levels of 'Common', if it actually isn't common enough to allow everyone access: what, non-core spells are Semi-common? :P
PS: and what's to stop the evil, evil, PS's "from running roughshod" over the DM with CORE common spells the DM doesn't like? Is the core inherently better? Or is the DM less able to control spells outside of core?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's certainly an argument that as long as ongoing increases in non-Rare spells go on, a given GM's ability to keep track of which ones might have problematic interactions becomes harder and harder just for numeric reasons.
But that makes little sense as it ONLY applies to spells: you don't see a limitation on equipment, magic items, feats, abilities, ect from other books. Now if fighter says 'you can only pick common feats from the core book' or if alchemists could 'only pick from common items from the core', it might be all about 'problematic interactions' between an ever-growing amount of abilities or items, then factor in those combined with magic items before we even get to spells... Is there a reason spells alone require a hand holding mechanic?
Well, there's certainly an argument that as long as ongoing increases in non-Rare spells go on, a given GM's ability to keep track of which ones might have problematic interactions becomes harder and harder just for numeric reasons.But that makes little sense as it ONLY applies to spells: you don't see a limitation on equipment, magic items, feats, abilities, ect from other books. Now if fighter says 'you can only pick common feats from the core book' or if alchemists could 'only pick from common items from the core', it might be all about 'problematic interactions' between an ever-growing amount of abilities or items, then factor in those combined with magic items before we even get to spells... Is there a reason spells alone require a hand holding mechanic?
That's a fair point, but generally speaking, items and feats aren't as problematic since they don't distort the very fabric of (in-game) reality/narrative like spells can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a fair point, but generally speaking, items and feats aren't as problematic since they don't distort the very fabric of (in-game) reality/narrative like spells can.Well, there's certainly an argument that as long as ongoing increases in non-Rare spells go on, a given GM's ability to keep track of which ones might have problematic interactions becomes harder and harder just for numeric reasons.But that makes little sense as it ONLY applies to spells: you don't see a limitation on equipment, magic items, feats, abilities, ect from other books. Now if fighter says 'you can only pick common feats from the core book' or if alchemists could 'only pick from common items from the core', it might be all about 'problematic interactions' between an ever-growing amount of abilities or items, then factor in those combined with magic items before we even get to spells... Is there a reason spells alone require a hand holding mechanic?
Spells in PF2 are more like Class Feats than they were back in 1st. And with the sheer number of, "Wizard's Got Nerfed!?!?1" threads that we've had on these boards, I don't think "power" is really a problem.
Items and feats aren't as problematic as spells? What about items that duplicate the effects of spells? What about Feats that grant access to spellcasting? Why should there be a difference between access to spells from the Advanced Player's Guide, and Feats from that same book?
Why should a Wizard be able to select Call Bonded Item as a Feat at 4th level, but they couldn't grab Heat Metal at that same level, despite both coming from the same source book?
This. Is. Silly.
generally speaking, items and feats aren't as problematic since they don't distort the very fabric of (in-game) reality/narrative like spells can.
I just want to point out that scrolls/wands/staves with those exact same spells that are common can just be bought by the same character that for some unknown reason can't get them for free at level up... Now if you'd say 'but the DM can just make it so those items aren't found', would it be different than saying the same thing for the level up spell?
Wizard: "can I learn this spell at level up?"
DM: "what book is it from?"
Wizard: "APG"
DM: " Are you crazy? Who KNOWS what crazy interactions those spells might have..."
Wizard: "Can I just buy a scroll of that spell and then learn it?"
DM: "Oh, you'll buy it? Sure, that's perfectly fine."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's even worse than I thought with Druids and Clerics. I mean, I thought Wizards got the shaft since their starter 1st level spells are Core only, but now you're telling me Druids and Clerics can't prepare anything except Core spells?
Bad RAW is bad. Paizo, please fix.
That... is the point.
For a bard or a sorcerer or a wizard or an oracle or a witch, a new spell is a new character-building option. For a cleric or druid, a new spell means an individual character's versatility increases. Adding new spells to their lists makes clerics and druids more powerful, even aside from unexpected combos or power creep of the spells themselves.
I never played PF1, but this could be an issue in 3.5. Guess what houserule I implemented to address it, which is now part of the RAW in PF2?
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 makes Clerics and Druid so different from the others that they should be limited in that manner? Just because they don't have a limitation like a spellbook?
| 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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the grand scheme of things? Not really. By 2nd level, Wizards outgrow this problem, but reviewing the text and with your statements, Clerics and Druids never outgrow this. They are forever limited to Core only spells by RAW.
It isn't even a problem at level 1, you can still use the learn a spell action. It would be nice to not exist for the wizard but power creep is an exaggeration.
That's even worse than I thought with Druids and Clerics. I mean, I thought Wizards got the shaft since their starter 1st level spells are Core only, but now you're telling me Druids and Clerics can't prepare anything except Core spells?
Bad RAW is bad. Paizo, please fix.
Lol, clerics and druids getting every common spell from every single book is gigantic power creep over time. Especially now that there is only four spell lists (traditions).
It was terrible game design in 3.5/PF1e. It was a good decision to move away from it here, both for new players and for the sanity of the GM.
When a character has free reign to choose from such giant and wide spell lists it causes issues, in PF1e that was near 400 spells to choose from by level 3. PF2e has released less spells than PF1e but thanks to the four traditions and more broadly useful spells it will remain an issue into later levels in a big way.
Again, the cleric and druid as written can still use the learn a spell activity and this is more than enough imo.
The access discussion is valid from a RAW standpoint, however I think we start walking into RAW vs RAI.
That's why I said "generally speaking" guys. I knew very well the existence of spell items when I made my post. I still stand by my original statement.
That's why I said "generally speaking" guys. I knew very well the existence of spell items when I made my post. I still stand by my original statement.
OK... I just don't see how that original statement stands when you can completely sidestep it with a scroll: I don't see "running roughshod all over GM" from leveling when just around the corner they can "running roughshod all over GM" with a scroll. In the very best light, it's a side-grade that doesn't do anything but annoy the player by making them go through an extra step. :P
|
|
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).
OK... I just don't see how that original statement stands when you can completely sidestep it with a scroll: I don't see "running roughshod all over GM" from leveling when just around the corner they can "running roughshod all over GM" with a scroll. In the very best light, it's a side-grade that doesn't do anything but annoy the player by making them go through an extra step. :P
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...
| 2 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the grand scheme of things? Not really. By 2nd level, Wizards outgrow this problem, but reviewing the text and with your statements, Clerics and Druids never outgrow this. They are forever limited to Core only spells by RAW.It isn't even a problem at level 1, you can still use the learn a spell action. It would be nice to not exist for the wizard but power creep is an exaggeration.
That's even worse than I thought with Druids and Clerics. I mean, I thought Wizards got the shaft since their starter 1st level spells are Core only, but now you're telling me Druids and Clerics can't prepare anything except Core spells?
Bad RAW is bad. Paizo, please fix.
Lol, clerics and druids getting every common spell from every single book is gigantic power creep over time. Especially now that there is only four spell lists (traditions).
It was terrible game design in 3.5/PF1e. It was a good decision to move away from it here, both for new players and for the sanity of the GM.
When a character has free reign to choose from such giant and wide spell lists it causes issues, in PF1e that was near 400 spells to choose from by level 3. PF2e has released less spells than PF1e but thanks to the four traditions and more broadly useful spells it will remain an issue into later levels in a big way.
Again, the cleric and druid as written can still use the learn a spell activity and this is more than enough imo.
The access discussion is valid from a RAW standpoint, however I think we start walking into RAW vs RAI.
It requires downtime that you don't have, a gold cost that others don't have to pay for, and a skill check that may make you waste your gold and/or time. You can't expect any of those at the beginning of an adventure, or even during one, making it not as viable as one thinks.
Then the simplest solution is to just never add spells from future books into the game if power creep is really such a worry to people. After all, if spells prepared is such a problem for Primal/Divine spellcasters, so are spontaneous spells, since now players need to decide if X spell from Y source is worth one of their few precious slots. It works both ways. Having rules that purposefully shut down prepared spellcasters when spontaneous spellcasters still have an identical problem does nothing but otherize prepared spellcasters in the same negative way spontaneous was in PF1/3.5. For a game that wanted to promote equality between these two casting styles, it has once again failed to deliver on that promise with this kind of ruling.