Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Honestly, as annoying as this is, it should just be a check to acquire the spell, and sooner or later you will likely succeed (some also champion assurance and the magical shorthand feat) and if you want to learn more spells (as wizards tend to like to do) the cost for that is pretty minor.
Is this a rule I like? Not really, but it should not totally ruin org play for you, and fortunately a fair number of classes are not really affected by this.
That said if this ruins org play for you, your feelings are absolutely valid, and I can only suggest ways to mitigate or avoid the issue.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
This is something that sorely needs errata.
But its actually in the core rules of the game, this isn't an organized play issued ruling. So Alex Mike and the gang cant just say "yeah we are gonna waive this rule that no one likes" unless the design team changes their minds.
|
|
Read through this.
Is that updated and comprehensive? I could have sworn that I read a discussion where it was agreed clerics were different from other spellcasters because only clerics specified CRB. (It was used as evidence that it was a typo on the cleric.)
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
Read through this.Is that updated and comprehensive? I could have sworn that I read a discussion where it was agreed clerics were different from other spellcasters because only clerics specified CRB. (It was used as evidence that it was a typo on the cleric.)
I don't know the discussion you're talking about, but there are 3 classes with language specifying that their free spells are from the CRB: Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Of those, wizard is the outlier, as the class that's selecting a set number of spells like the other casters who don't have any language specifying a book, but I don't see how you would use those three to think cleric was the exception.
As a minor clarification for the original poster, this rule was written into 3 classes, it is not a society rule for all prepared casters. Witch is not affected, as the witch spellcasting and familiar features do not include that restriction.
|
|
I don't know the discussion you're talking about, but there are 3 classes with language specifying that their free spells are from the CRB: Cleric, Druid and Wizard.
I don't know what discussion I'm talking about either.
I just tend to glance at these rules debates and get a rough feel for where different people stand. I thought it had been agreed that it was definitely unpopular, likely unintentional, and that TPTB were reviewing it, but I never bothered to follow up.
If the linked thread is canon, it seems to be unpopular and under review, but intentional rather than unintentional.
Contributor
|
DarkosFenix,
It really is frustrating to fail spell learning rolls. You have my sympathies.
My solution to this was to take the Assurance feat for Arcana so that I could just pay my gold and learn my spells. The good news for me though is that as a person who was primarily a spellcaster, I found there was less big stuff that that I needed to buy and so devoting a little gold here and there to learn spells did not break my bank.
I hope that this helps a little.
Hmm
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
How many spells were you planning to learn?
As a wizard you learn two spells for free per level - and they have to be from the CRB. But all the other spells you're learning, whether they're from the CRB or not, you always have to pay for them and make a check to see if you can learn them.
It's been that way for pretty much the beginning of D&D in the seventies, as far as I can tell. Although the price keeps going down and the check has been getting easier. In 2E D&D if you failed that check you could NEVER retry it. Now you just have to wait a level, or if you have the Magical Shorthand feat even less, and the feat also offsets the costs considerably. Also, since Learn A Spell is an exploration activity (and not downtime), I'm not aware of any rule preventing you from using a Hero Point to get a reroll on a failure.
|
While I can agree that the free spells only from CRB seems silly, it is what it is.
When I have played wizards, for example, I’ve never balked at spending gold for spells.
In fact, for PFS, it is pretty much all I spend money for with my wizards. Spells are more important than magic weapons or armor.
As for clerics and druids, they’ve always had an advantage over wizards in that the could cast any spell (well, technically that their deity allows them to take). Now they have to spend just like a wizard to get access to the stuff in the additional books. That seems fair to me, really.
But, I do see your point on how frustrating it can be.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And all I want is to use the common spells from SoM. This puts me in a situation where I have to choose between just making mechanically the same character OR I use my gold to learn the spells I want (which I could always fail) and hamper my progression to the items I would like to buy for my character.
Yes. This is working as intended.
You want to get something that other characters don't have access to.
You must spend a resource to get it.
We are talking *very small* amounts of gold, and PFS is *hugely* most haul. Most characters will earn 10-25% more gold than recommended by the core rule book.
|
So for now, my plans to have an blaster arcanist in PFS is gone. Specially because I already have a wizard blaster
Or you might just have to wait one or two games.
Or take magical shorthand
Or decide that you would rather just play your existing blaster wizard, and incorporate the spells onto them.
Or decide to stp playing PFS and find a home game with a style you prefer. Not everyone has to like PFS. And if your arguement is "if I cant have the new character I want I won't want to play any of my other characters ever again." then it sounds like there are probably a lot of existing reasons you have already decided Org Play is not a good fit for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I can agree that the free spells only from CRB seems silly, it is what it is.
When I have played wizards, for example, I’ve never balked at spending gold for spells.
In fact, for PFS, it is pretty much all I spend money for with my wizards. Spells are more important than magic weapons or armor.As for clerics and druids, they’ve always had an advantage over wizards in that the could cast any spell (well, technically that their deity allows them to take). Now they have to spend just like a wizard to get access to the stuff in the additional books. That seems fair to me, really.
But, I do see your point on how frustrating it can be.
At least in PF2, copying a scroll doesn't destroy the scroll. I am in a home game right now where our PC are out in the small towns on the edge of civilization. There are no libraries of magic where we can go and just study other people's spell books.
If I want a spell, I pretty much have to buy a scroll. (Or level up. But for a "utility wizard" 2 spells per level just really doesn't cut it.
PFS is actually *super generous* about stuff like that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree 100% with you and I of course don't want to cheat and that's why I'm having this issue
I was not suggesting that you were, but my comments are often taken by some that I am encouraging cheating with respect to this issue and I wanted to establish my position on it. My focus is 100% completely coming from the perspective of my role as the GM and that I am not going to audit your character's build history such that I'll know if you rolled to obtain each of those non-CRB spells so if a player "fudged" a few checks, no one but them is going to know about it. This is just a hill we should not be willing to die on. There are soo many people who object to any rule that might cause a player to quit, why would this be any different?
|
|
Or, in other words, with only 240-300 minutes to run an event, spending thirty of them auditing every single spell is incredibly counter-productive and un-fun.
And that's as a GM with the resources to verify the audit.
In addition, it might be viable to do that for online play where things are a lot more accessible, but I cannot see that happening in the typical physical convention setting with spotty (at best) wi-fi coverage and that's if the GM has a data plan that allows for such things.
I Do Not like this rule, because it presumes that GMs have Plenty of Time at their tables to do audits of characters to ensure compliance which has NEVER been the case when I've been running
Heck, some scenarios are hard-pressed to end in a timely fashion for all the bells and whistles that are crammed into them with no good 'optional' encounters.
The above thirty minute figure is for one character, and predicated on the idea that the player has kept meticulous notes about their spell acquisitions.
If there's more than one character that needs that kind of audit at the table, you're going to have incredible time management issues with the scenario and that's presuming an efficient muster of the table before the time for the event begins.
Given my last few online conventions, that has not been a solid wager.
Imo, Organized Play should be here to encourage a sense of community, growth, and fair play. It should not be here to be a Rules Inquisition to ensure Maximum Compliance with the Rules Or Else.
|
|
First, I'm no fan of the rule. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they may have been trying to avoid the appearance of "Pay to Win" (i.e., you spend money on books and get more versatility--hopefully not power). Or maybe I'm reaching for justifications. If that is the motivation, it doesn't really deal with that issue.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't tell but we just updated this rule to be less...cumbersome.
If you want to know why the rule existed initially, you'll have to ask a designer, not my place to say (they do have a good reason, but they've moved away from it).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I Do Not like this rule, because it presumes that GMs have Plenty of Time at their tables to do audits of characters to ensure compliance which has NEVER been the case when I've been running
The rules are written on the assumption that players will read and follow the rules. GMs should not be having to do purchase audits for spells any more than they should be doing purchase audits for consumables.
"I don't like this rule because it is too much work to make sure other people are following it." is really not a convincing arguement.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't tell but we just updated this rule to be less...cumbersome.
If you want to know why the rule existed initially, you'll have to ask a designer, not my place to say (they do have a good reason, but they've moved away from it).
On the one hand there were elements of this rule that I liked. On the other hand one less thing I have to deal with arguements over.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't like this rule because it is too much work to make sure other people are following it." is really not a convincing arguement.
Personally, I find "I don't like this rule because it is so much work for so little gain that I expect it to be generally totally ignored" (I too can play the game of paraphrasing arguments to help make my point) a quite convincing argument. Especially when there are so many examples of exactly that occurring with PFS rules (both PFS1 and PFS2).
|
Leshy are free these days as far as ACP are concerned, so no new races until you finish your greens (i.e. reach level 20)Alas, the greens will be brown and shriveled in the beer crisper before that happens.
"W'all, tha's ya mista'! Pu'n em in th' gr'n b'x! M'be st' th'm 'n a 'vers'ck"
|
All of what you said is correct.
I find that important to reiterate, because most people I've spoken to about this whole kerfuffle never understood the problem to begin with, and it's frustrating when you're trying to have a discussion with people who are blind to an entire sentence.
The Guide has always been in error, because its source was a misunderstood Blog post.
I want to believe Alex understands that, but I get the impression he just didn't like the rule as misinterpreted.
Same end result, even if the reasoning is flawed. It's like doing good for the wrong reason.
As such, I believe we can continue to ignore the section in the Guide, and hope that eventually it gets removed so everything matches the FAQ.
|
|
Good grief... we're creating problems where we don't have or need problems.
The Witch and the Magus don't need clarification because they say
You choose these spells from the common spells of the tradition determined by your patron or from other spells of that tradition you gain access to.
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. Feats can also grant your familiar additional spells.
You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list or from other arcane spells you gain access to.
The whole problem was that Cleric, Druid, and Wizard had 'in this book' in their respective spells section and people got all bent out of shape trying to define what the 'access' definition meant.