Why don't any of the occult classes get telekinesis?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering it's kind of one of the iconic "psychic powers", this seems odd to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They do - the psychic class even gets it one spell level early.

telekinesis wrote:
Level arcanist 5, magus 5, occultist 5, psychic 4, sorcerer 5, spiritualist 5, wizard 5

They also get mage hand & a bunch of similar spells.

Oh, there's also the telekineticist for specialised mind lifting.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Occultist can get (an improved version)Telekinesis as a Focus power at 9th. And as a 5th level spell, though that's at 13.

Not to mention the Aether Kineticist...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ykatuba you're probably looking at the D20PFSRD which - while a great resource - is a 3rd party. They don't have the licence for all materials, so you get things like INCORRECTLY NAMED ARCHETYPES because they're not allowed to use the Paizo specific names.

While I usee the PFSRD a lot (I like their layout better most of the time) I always double-check it against ARCHIVESOFNETHYS. It's now the official Paizo resource document, so they give you the CORRECT ARCHETYPE NAMES and - as you can see with Telekinesis - often have more updated spell-lists/etc.

It's worth noting that archivesofnethys.com is (or at least was) run by less people, so they often take longer to update mistakes or erata. Sometimes the PFSRD is more up to date than AoN. One of the reasons I like the PFSRD is that they often link FAQs and erata. In most cases if something looks off it's worth checking both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was looking at the Pathfinder SRD. For some reason, it only lists it as a sorcerer/wizard spell, and one of the oracle mystery spells.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
I was looking at the Pathfinder SRD. For some reason, it only lists it as a sorcerer/wizard spell, and one of the oracle mystery spells.

As noted by previous posters, https://www.d20pfsrd.com is a third-party site: It has some nice features, but it is operated by folks who are completely independent of Paizo and are not permitted to include any of Paizo's intellectual property (Generally speaking, any proper names need to be changed).

https://www.aonprd.com is the official online repository for Pathfinder (including the PF1e Telekinesis spell).

If you are looking for the full game rules, the Pathfinder Reference Document has the major ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Yqatuba wrote:
I was looking at the Pathfinder SRD. For some reason, it only lists it as a sorcerer/wizard spell, and one of the oracle mystery spells.

As noted by previous posters, https://www.d20pfsrd.com is a third-party site: It has some nice features, but it is operated by folks who are completely independent of Paizo and are not permitted to include any of Paizo's intellectual property (Generally speaking, any proper names need to be changed).

https://www.aonprd.com is the official online repository for Pathfinder (including the PF1e Telekinesis spell).

If you are looking for the full game rules, the Pathfinder Reference Document has the major ones.

I had always thought it was the other way around for some reason. Thanks for explaining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AechivesOfNethys used to be a 3rd party site as well.

The PFSRD site was (and is) a business, so they're bound by copyright law. As such they can't use all the material published (mostly names). Kind-of like how Paizo couldn't use specific names for spells in the core Rulebook (eg. Bigby's Crushing Hand became just Crushing Hand when they ported it over from 3.5).

It's my understanding that ArchivesOfNethys was a personal site that was (and is?) made and maintained by one person. They didn't recieve money or compensation from their work so they were allowed to post whatever without breaching copyright. However when Paizo were looking at adding games to their repertoire (Starfinder, PF2) and looking at maintaining their own legacy site they decided instesd to incorporate AoN into the fold and made it an official Paizo Source.

So the Paizo Reference Doc is good, but isn't really maintained. The PFSRD is a good resource but isn't allowed to use first party material (mostly names). ArchivesOfNethys is official and is maintained, but is understaffed, so it often takes a while to fix mistakes/errata.

(If I got any major details wrong feel free to correct me)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
(If I got any major details wrong feel free to correct me)

Seems about right… really the only thing left to say is that AoN technically falls into the category of 2nd party at this point since they are officially licensed by the first party (Paizo). They still operate independently from Paizo, so they still can’t be considered first party at this time. Either way though, 2nd party resources are generally just as reliable as first party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:

Ykatuba you're probably looking at the D20PFSRD which - while a great resource - is a 3rd party. They don't have the licence for all materials, so you get things like INCORRECTLY NAMED ARCHETYPES because they're not allowed to use the Paizo specific names.

While I usee the PFSRD a lot (I like their layout better most of the time) I always double-check it against ARCHIVESOFNETHYS. It's now the official Paizo resource document, so they give you the CORRECT ARCHETYPE NAMES and - as you can see with Telekinesis - often have more updated spell-lists/etc.

It's worth noting that archivesofnethys.com is (or at least was) run by less people, so they often take longer to update mistakes or erata. Sometimes the PFSRD is more up to date than AoN. One of the reasons I like the PFSRD is that they often link FAQs and erata. In most cases if something looks off it's worth checking both.

THAT . . . . . was super useful. That's the first time I've had somebody explain the difference between those two sites. I've never noticed anything wrong or missing from any build I wanted to do, and we play casual home games, so my group all use PFSRD. I agree with you on the format. But, now I see the wisdom of poking around on AoN. Guess I'll have to stretch out of my comfort zone a bit. Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I long preferred PFSRD for the way the site is organized and hyperlinked, but when it became blocked by my work for some reason, I used AoN more and more. It didn't take long to get used to knowing where to go in that site, and the new search page is actually pretty good.

However, if I have a rules question, and I remember where it is/was on PFSRD, I will still sometimes go to an older (not up-to-date) mirror of PFSRD just because I know where the information I'm looking for is and I don't have to hunt around for it. PFSRD is (or was) an overlay of a Google sites page, so this mirror has something to do with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sysryke wrote:
I've never noticed anything wrong or missing from any build I wanted to do, and we play casual home games, so my group all use PFSRD.

The biggest issue with d20pfsrd.com is it often omits, changes, or adds text, without any indication.

Examples:
• The Wizard description got text about arcane discoveries (which are from UM, and thus can't be in the CRB Wizard description), but instead of "A wizard can learn an arcane discovery in place of a regular feat or wizard bonus feat." the text says you can only replace bonus feats.
Treesinger Druid says the companion has to be "drawn from the list below". The actual book says "any of the plants listed in Plant Companions", which allows for an expansion of the list by simply calling other options Plant Companions (which is exactly what UW did).
• The glossary entry for "bonus" has a table added that was copy-pasted from the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, and is outright wrong for PF in at least one entry.
The glossary entry for "speed" uses text from a forum post by an ordinary user as if it was rule text. This post, to be precise.
• The "The Bear" entry for Harrow Deck of Many Things omits the part "He is considered a natural lycanthrope" from the book, which completely changes the effect from a positive to a negative.
• The Harmonic Spell text was changed to incorporate a PFS exclusive change, the book text makes no mention of "1st or higher level".

And don't even get me started on 3rd party stuff that if you're lucky can be identified via the source text, or how the occulst classes aren't listed under classes, but rather under "Alternative Rule Systems", which makes them look as official as e.g. Spheres of Might classes.

Removing references to intellectual property also affects stuff like requiring worshipping a specific deity to qualify for a feat, or where a caracter has to come from for a regional trait, to the point that such things may look compatible when they aren't. So it's not just an ineffectual change in names.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Derklord wrote:

The biggest issue with d20pfsrd.com is it often omits, changes, or adds text, without any indication.

Examples:
• The Wizard description got text about arcane discoveries (which are from UM, and thus can't be in the CRB Wizard description), but instead of "A wizard can learn an arcane discovery in place of a regular feat or wizard bonus feat." the text says you can only replace bonus feats.

I am not sure about your other examples, but the Archives of Nethys and my pocket edition of Ultimate Magic both have the exact same text about regular feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Derklord wrote:

The biggest issue with d20pfsrd.com is it often omits, changes, or adds text, without any indication.

Examples:
• The Wizard description got text about arcane discoveries (which are from UM, and thus can't be in the CRB Wizard description), but instead of "A wizard can learn an arcane discovery in place of a regular feat or wizard bonus feat." the text says you can only replace bonus feats.

I am not sure about your other examples, but the Archives of Nethys and my pocket edition of Ultimate Magic both have the exact same text about regular feats.

I think you misunderstood what they were saying…

The books and AoN correctly state that you can take Arcane Discoveries in place of a Wizard’s bonus feat OR regular feats.

d20PFSRD incorrectly states that you can take Arcane Discoveries inplace of a Wizard’s bonus feats. Implying that they may ONLY replace bonus feats.

They were pointing out inaccuracies on d20PFSRD. We all know it is correct in the books, and AoN is licensed by Paizo to keep things 100% by the books accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm... I think some of this is probably editing problems ...

These are all from the PFSRD on Arcane Discoveries:

At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, a wizard gains a bonus feat. At each such opportunity, he can choose a metamagic feat, an item creation, or Spell Mastery. The wizard must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including caster level minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. The wizard is not limited to the categories of Item Creation Feats, Metamagic Feats, or Spell Mastery when choosing those feats.

A wizard may also choose an Arcane Discovery that he qualifies for in place of a bonus feat at these levels.

Wizards spend much of their lives seeking deeper truths, hunting knowledge as if it were life itself. The Wizard’s power is not necessarily the spells he wields; spells are merely the outward, most visible manifestation of that power. A Wizard’s true power is in his fierce intelligence, his dedication to his craft, and his ability to peel back the surface truths of reality to understand the fundamental underpinnings of existence. A Wizard spends much of his time researching spells, and would rather find an undiscovered library than a room full of gold. A Wizard need not be a reclusive bookworm, but he must have a burning curiosity for the unknown. Arcane discoveries are the results of this obsession with magic.

A Wizard can learn an arcane discovery in place of a regular feat or Wizard bonus feat.

(Scroll riiiight down the bottom of the table, past the 3rd party stuff to the notes)

X=replaced, (X)=optional replacement, C=changed, 1=archetype package 1, 2=archetype package 2
* Arcane discoveries may be selected with a wizard’s normal feats gained from leveling, if they meet the prerequisites

So the first mention omits the "regular feat" part. But on the other hand that's in the section on Bonus Feats, so it's telling you what you can do with that class feature.

The second mention is in the "Arcane Discoveries" text. It's got the "regular feats" text, but it's actually on a separate page. You have to ckick a link to get there.

The third mention is on the page and has the correct text, but is hidden at the bottom of a table and isn't actually visible without effort.

So it's not actually incorrect, but it's definitely hard to find. I can definitely see a problem there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point though is that many of the edits that are made in d20PFSRD are misleading… even if you can ultimately find the correct information amidst all their edits… it’s just a bad source of reliable information since it is all too easy to come to the wrong conclusion about how something works as a direct result of their edits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other problem with d20pfsrd is that the database underneath the pages is not great. Telekinesis is a spell from the core rulebook and apparently its own record never got updated when Occult Adventures was released, given the list Yqatuba was working off. This despite the site having the psychic, occultist and spiritualist spell lists referencing it - AoN seems to have a cleaner setup.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chell Raighn wrote:
The point though is that many of the edits that are made in d20PFSRD are misleading… even if you can ultimately find the correct information amidst all their edits… it’s just a bad source of reliable information since it is all too easy to come to the wrong conclusion about how something works as a direct result of their edits.

Thank you Chell, this was exactly my point. In itself, adding some text to the Wizard class description (that's otherwise copied form the CRB) to point out arcane discoveries isn't a bad idea, but not only did they not indicate that the text they added was not official (a no-go when quoting something), they gave only partial and thereby highly misleading information.

I'd like to point out that I didn't look for errors on the site, but rather that every one of my examples was based on an actual occurence where someone on these boards was confused or made a wrong statement, because they took text on d20pfsrd.com at face value.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah there definitely are errors. This thread is an example of those errors. Not trying to start a fight there.

I don't want to poop on it too hard though, it's a free resource, and some of the edits (eg. links to FAQs in relevant places) have been super helpful over the years.

The main point is that you should double check your sources. I've found the odd mistake on Nethys (though less often) and very occasionally both sites have incorrect/incomplete information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

    But it's not about the errors. Errors is e.g. the Bleeding Attack Rogue talent not being listed or titles with an asterisk.
    What I'm talking about are apparently deliberate changes to the text that aren't in any way denoted as such. d20pfsrd.com is altering text that is presented as being copy-pasted. And I don't mean including errata or consolidating information, but adding text from, or changing text because of, other sources (3.5 book, PFS-only change, or even a freaking forum post by a non-Paizo-member).
    They're presenting something they wrote or someone else wrote as official Pathfinder ruletext.

And again, the above were just the examples that I found by searching my own forum posts for when I responded to people who were mislead or confused by the site breaking the standards of presenting information. It's not an exhaustive list. For Dragonheit Scion they also adopted changes (the archetype is erroneous as written) from PFS without indication, which may or may not be what the author wanted.Glorious Heat at least has an editor's note... but still doesn't give the actual book text, only the PFS version.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the changes d20pfsrd made to the original text. Not clear to me who wins by reprinting incorrect or misleading original language faithfully.

There is a lot of content on nethys that doesn’t appear on d20pfsrd though; archetypes, spells, feats, not just the obvious deity related comtent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This isn't in response to any post in this thread, but it's also interesting to note that PFSRD has "Paizo material" that AoN does not have, such as the Omdura and Vampire Hunter classes. I think that these are Paizo-published, but not Paizo-written, but I'm not sure. Somehow they're under the OGL (possibly a requirement of being Paizo-published) so PFSRD can print them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PFSRD is much nicer to look at and easier to navigate. The errors aren't egregious enough for me to really care to be frank.

I do go on the Archives to pull Celestial Obediences and whenever I need to tool around with Occult Classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My main reason for using PFSRD is that it's more optimised for google.

If I'm looking for a feat/spell/whatever and I don't remember what it's called I can often find it by googling "PFSRD Axe Feat", or something and fiind what I'm looking for in the related pages that come up. Doing the same thing with "AONPRD Axe Feat" is a lot less likely to get me to the page I'm looking for.

As I said above, it's important to know that both options are available, and to know what their strengths and weaknesses are. There's no real downsides to having both options available.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why don't any of the occult classes get telekinesis? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion