Nowhere in there does it say you must use a spellbook to prepare them again. So not sure what you're getting at. You are not saying anything with this to refute to what I wrote.I don't need a spellbook as a cleric or druid. You cannot prove I need one. I don't use a spellbook to prepare spells and you cannot decide that I do just as I don't get to randomly decide that I do.
You are just totally missing it, leading to a strawman.
I did not say MUST.
I am not trying to PROVE NEED.
I am saying you CAN USE. I have referenced the rules that allow that.
* Cleric and Druid do not need a spellbook to copy uncommon spells (they get added to their list), we are clear on this right?
False
There is a misconception here.
LIST is the list of the tradition, not an individuals list.
Please provide evidence otherwise.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have left out the rest of the textThe spell book item enables preparing them from a book. It holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells
That is enough.
A spellbook holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells, a necessity for wizards (who typically get one for free) and a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spells.
When you look at the rest of it you see that it separates wizards (who prepare from the spellbook) from other spellcasters who can learn from a spellbook. The spellbook does not impart the ability to prepare spells from itself. It is merely a tool.
The phrase access is used in writing into a spell book and separately in the class spell preparation feature.
That is a good tie in.There is no gap there unless you create one by reading something else in.
...
What you have missed is that the uncommon divine spells are already on THE divine spell list. So adding to your list again does nothing for spell preparation, as its already there.
So, there seems to be confusion. Depending upon your GM, you could have access to uncommon spells as if they were common spells. Or, your GM could utilize the system that is built in. Uncommon+ classification spells, by default, require LaS to add it to your list of spells. The list of spells you have access to by default are "from the common spells on the divine spell list...". The rest of the text after is "or from other divine spells to which you gain access".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Cleric and Druid do not need a spellbook to copy uncommon spells (they get added to their list), we are clear on this right?False
There is a misconception here.
LIST is the list of the tradition, not an individuals list.
Please provide evidence otherwise.
Ask and ye shall receive...
Your deity bestows on you the power to cast divine spells. You can cast divine spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when casting spells (see Casting Spells). Because you're a cleric, you can usually hold a divine focus (such as a religious symbol) for spells requiring material components instead of needing to use a material component pouch. At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list or from other divine spells to which you gain access. Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. The number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots.
the rest of the textA spellbook holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells, a necessity for wizards (who typically get one for free) and a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spells.When you look at the rest of it you see that it separates wizards (who prepare from the spellbook) from other spellcasters who can learn from a spellbook. The spellbook does not impart the ability to prepare spells from itself. It is merely a tool.
There are more types of spellcasters who don't prepare at all. That is why it continues.
A bard can clealy write occult spells to a spell book.
A bard can use a spellbook to add an occult spell to his repertoire, as it provides access.
A cleric can clealy write divine spells to a spell book.
A cleric can use a spellbook to prepare a cleric spell, as it provides access.
The cleric preparation rules reference the common divine spell list, not - at least not directly, the individual caster's list.
Ask and ye shall receive...
spells on the divine spell list
That is a clear win to me. That is singular and global, not individual.
I'm not inserting the reading of an individuals spell list here, you are.
|
|
Ask and ye shall receive...
spells on the divine spell list
That is a clear win to me.
...okay..so..
Let's say a first level cleric wants to cast Protection from a spell slot. How do they go about it? The whole process.
Ask and ye shall receive...
spells on the divine spell list
That is a clear win to me.
...okay..so..
Let's say a first level cleric want to cast Protection from a spell slot. How do they go about it? The whole process.
Option 1:
The GM grants access, via the general rules on accessOption 2:
A spellbook had Protection inscribed into it by another Cleric that already had access
The new cleric obtains a spellbook with Protection (because the GM allowed it)
The spell book provides access to Protection because the Cleric can now use the Learn a Spell
which says You can gain access to a new spell. Yes learn a spell goes on but the rest of it only closes the loop.
Either way:
The cleric now has access to this spell so the second clause in their spell preparation rules which says you can prepare [...] each morning from [...] or from other divine spells to which you gain access
They are two seperate lists.
One is the list of all spells, the other is the list of known spells.
OK but you have mixed in the concept of an individual spell list here. The rules don't do that here. That is just how you are explaining the rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me quote a fresh rules section
Although spellbooks play a central role in a wizard’s daily routine, other prepared spellcasting classes have been known to use spellbooks to record uncommon or even rare spells. Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.
This is traditional coloquial Paizo wording as it has droped the references to access but it clearly allows spell books to other prepared casters in the method I discussed.
OK but you have mixed in the concept of an individual spell list here. The rules don't do that here. That is just how you are explaining the rules.They are two seperate lists.
One is the list of all spells, the other is the list of known spells.
The rules don't say clerics and druids can use spellbooks to prepare spells. That is just how you are explaining the rules.
(Things go both ways and Paizo tends to rule towars the most conservative side).
Nope it is enabled by 2 general rules for prepared casters. One spell books the item, and the other 3 posts up.
|
|
Let me quote a fresh rules section
Although spellbooks play a central role in a wizard’s daily routine, other prepared spellcasting classes have been known to use spellbooks to record uncommon or even rare spells. Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.
This is tradition sloppy Paizo wording as it has droped the references to access but it clearly allows spell books to other prepared casters in the method I discussed.
Now this is a good argument and solves the issue.
Also I got Ninjaed.
Indeed
I also found:
You might gain an ability that allows you to swap prepared spells or perform other aspects of preparing spells at different times throughout the day, but only your daily preparation counts for the purpose of effects that last until the next time you prepare spells.
Nowhere in there does it say you must use a spellbook to prepare them again. So not sure what you're getting at. You are not saying anything with this to refute to what I wrote.I don't need a spellbook as a cleric or druid. You cannot prove I need one. I don't use a spellbook to prepare spells and you cannot decide that I do just as I don't get to randomly decide that I do.
You are just totally missing it, leading to a strawman.
I did not say MUST.
I am not trying to PROVE NEED.I am saying you CAN USE. I have referenced the rules that allow that.
No. That is not what a Strawman is. I looked that argument reasoning a while ago. It's an overused fallacy that many people don't bother to read the meaning of.
It is a very simple rule: I do not get to choose my method of preparation. I literally cannot choose to use Spellbook Preparation like a wizard.
Preparation is defined for each class. It does not change due to the general rules are you are citing. What you are citing is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect the rules for preparation defined in each class.
Sure, I can say I read my prayerbook/spellbook for a cosmetic reason. I can just as easily say I spend time in meditation in the morning. I can cosmetically alter what I wish.
Nowhere does it require me to use a Spellbook for spell preparation unless I'm a wizard or a magus. That is their method of preparation. As a cleric I get up in the morning and prepare my spells coloring it cosmetically any way I wish.
I am currently not sure what you are trying to prove with your statements:
1. None of them prove Spell Substitution works for any class but a Wizard or a Magus because no other class uses Spellbooks for preparation as anything other than a cosmetic feature.
2. You have not shown that you can willingly unprepare a slot other than using it which leaves it empty until you follow the preparation rules for your class.
3. A spellbook is one source of many listed for learning a spell for other classes if the spell is uncommon, but once the spell is learned you no longer have to reference the text or source for further preparation which you can do using the method defined for your class.
So I am not sure what you are trying to prove or argue. The idea a class can fully use a Spellbook with an Arcane Thesis is not supported by your rule listings at all.
I once again reiterate exclusionary language is unnecessary when something is already clearly defined. The clear definition is that classes other than a wizard or magus do not use spellbooks for preparation for any other reason than perhaps cosmetics. They are not required and are purely a personal decision that can be completely ignored and doesn't in anyway matter.
The fact I could completely ignore your argument if you made it at my table shows clearly that it is a weak argument that you keep making for no other reason than to be argumentative. It has no standing in the rules and can completely ignored by any class other than a wizard or a magus.
I should have quoted it when I originally was pointing to the spellbook entry. Sorry for the extra page of confusion. Also interesting to note that the spell book that the protection spell could be found in could be an occult spellbook, and the cleric would still be able to learn the spell from it because spell books don't have traditions.
So does this mean everyone agrees that a wizard multiclass cleric with both cleric and wizard spell slots can use their spell substitution thesis to affect their cleric spells as their wizard spells? Since no reference to tradition is made and any spell can be written in a spellbook?
I am currently not sure what you are trying to prove with your statements:
1. None of them prove Spell Substitution works for any class but a Wizard or
I am not trying to prove anything. No particular build or tactic. But you shot down what might be a tactic based on bad reasoning. Which I have been able to show to a moderate extent is false. So I felt I could add something if I interjected.
3. A spellbook is one source of many listed for learning a spell for other classes if the spell is uncommon, but once the spell is learned you no longer have to reference the text or source for further preparation which you can do using the method defined for your class.
so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations
Hmmm.
The rest of your statement is just not relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me quote a fresh rules section
Although spellbooks play a central role in a wizard’s daily routine, other prepared spellcasting classes have been known to use spellbooks to record uncommon or even rare spells. Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.
This is traditional coloquial Paizo wording as it has droped the references to access but it clearly allows spell books to other prepared casters in the method I discussed.
This is completely unnecessary and contradictory to this:
You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll. If you can cast spells of multiple traditions, you can Learn a Spell of any of those traditions, but you must use the corresponding skill to do so. For example, if you were a cleric with the bard multiclass archetype, you couldn't use Religion to add an occult spell to your bardic spell repertoire.
A cleric or druid can learn a spell from another individual who knows the spell, they do not have to write it in a spellbook if they do, and do not have to have the other person while adventuring to prepare that spell the next day. It clearly states once the spell is learned, it is on their list for daily preparations.
f you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
You learn the spell, it is added to your list. Druids and clerics prepare from a list. So once they learn it, it's on the list.
So funny how this game contradicts itself in several different sections.
Since your ruling is "general" and we're suppose dot use specific, the specific ruling under Learn a Spell supersedes the general ruling you referenced.
You learn the spell, it is added to your list. Druids and clerics prepare from a list. So once they learn it, it's on the list.
I have denied this statement many times go back and read again.
So funny how this game contradicts itself in several different sections.
Agreed.
if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list
is irrelevant and meanless and in that sense a contradiction
it really should say
if you prepare spells from a list, you now have access to it
At this point I will concede that we have been arguing over contradictory rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time, it is usually a bad idea to assume that there is a difference between “rules text” and “flavor text” or “Lore text.” In PF2 all of it is supposed to help you make decisions about how to play.
I think the crux here is if a prepared casting class can prepare a spell from a spellbook. Then Spell Substitution would work that way.
As far as I can tell they can. There are two general rules on spell books that open it up. To whom exactly if not Cleric and Druid? Magus and Witch aren't in the CRB.
Spell Substitution enables it itself. Providing your class does any spell preparation.
Witch is special btw and has a famliar inserted into their preparation rules. I'm thinking the familiar eats the spellbook.
|
|
They aren't really clear that they do though.
A spellbook holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells, a necessity for wizards (who typically get one for free) and a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spells. Each spellbook can hold up to 100 spells. The Price listed is for a blank spellbook.
Isn't clear because it isn't necessary for all those who prepare spells to use a spellbook to do so. It then goes further to seemingly correlate the "necessary" part to "a necessity for wizards". We know that wizards necessarily have to use spellbooks to prepare spells. And further still "a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spells". The sentence is formatted in a way that makes "wizards and...other spellcasters" imply that wizards use it their way and other spellcasters use it "to learn additional spells". All together, with wizards using it their way and other spellcasters using it for learning spells, it is accurate to say that a spellbook is used to "learn and prepare".
As for
Although spellbooks play a central role in a wizard’s daily routine, other prepared spellcasting classes have been known to use spellbooks to record uncommon or even rare spells. Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.
My issue with that is, for "other prepared spellcasting classes" the use is not specifically preparation from the spellbook as it is a "reference" to "allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell".
As far as I understand the rulings, specific overrides general. That is what has been cited to me many times in these rule discussions and by designers. If a rule provides a more specific ruling, you follow that. So that's what I've been doing.
The process goes like this:
1. If you are a cleric or a druid, you prepare from a list with specific rules for preparations that are outlined in the class. You have some latitude in how you cosmetically visualize this, but that is fluff.
2. Cleric and druid spellcasting state you can only access uncommon or rare spells if you learn them from some source, which could be a spellbook, another caster, or what not.
3. So you go to Learn a Spell which is a skill activity for the appropriate casting skill.
4. It states what happens if you successfully learn a spell, which means if you are a spellbook caster you add it to your spelbook. If a list caster, you add it to your list. If a repertoire caster you add it to the spells you can add or swap out of your repertoire and can add or swap it as needed from there when you level or any other opportunity for changing a repertoire.
None of the specific rules changes how you prepare spells or refresh spell slots for a given day which are specific to each class with some latitude for cosmetic fluff like a bard singing or cleric using a book or a druid communing with nature.
That's how I read it and run it. As is usual, do what you think is most fun in your game as I doubt any modification would alter the balance of the game too much if you can convince your DM to use the alternate reading of the ruling.
Actually, based on spellbook section in the rules (not the item entry), it seems to say that if you have a spellbook to reference that has an uncommon+ spell in it, you can treat it as a common spell during daily spell preparation. It seems to circumvent the need to learn it.
That section is a general rule discussing traditions. Since we are told to go by specific rules, I follow those listed in the class and description for learn a spell.
But if you can get that pushed through, I'd go for it. It's too expensive as a wizard to acquire spells. I've been spending quite a bit to fill my spellbook with lower level spells. I usually wait until I reach a level where the lower level spells are cheap. With the cost of acquisition then the cost of writing them in, it can be quite costly. If that is an easier and cheaper way, go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, based on spellbook section in the rules (not the item entry), it seems to say that if you have a spellbook to reference that has an uncommon+ spell in it, you can treat it as a common spell during daily spell preparation. It seems to circumvent the need to learn it.That section is a general rule discussing traditions. Since we are told to go by specific rules, I follow those listed in the class and description for learn a spell.
But if you can get that pushed through, I'd go for it. It's too expensive as a wizard to acquire spells. I've been spending quite a bit to fill my spellbook with lower level spells. I usually wait until I reach a level where the lower level spells are cheap. With the cost of acquisition then the cost of writing them in, it can be quite costly. If that is an easier and cheaper way, go for it.
General verus Specifc can be very hard to discern.
For my money, Specifc only overrides General in the parts that its specifically says.
Cleric and Druid say that they can prepare other spells they have access to.
The spellbook rules say Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.
This part does not contradict at all or require one to override the other in part or whole.
There is nothing to override here. The spellbook rule inserts into standard cleric spell preparation fine.
Actually, based on spellbook section in the rules (not the item entry), it seems to say that if you have a spellbook to reference that has an uncommon+ spell in it, you can treat it as a common spell during daily spell preparation. It seems to circumvent the need to learn it.
That does seem to be implied. There doesn't seem to be a limitation about using other spell books. A reasonable GM might enforce a rule requiring a Learn a Spell roll. But there is an alternative route here you can drive a truck through. I prefer to say that you still need to learn the spell. To my mind then both rules have omitted details, but none contradicts the other then.
This is a core problem with PF2. In a number of areas, it's rules and definitions are blurry and imprecise. They mostly line up if you make a few assumptions. But only mostly and many people will just do it differently.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, based on spellbook section in the rules (not the item entry), it seems to say that if you have a spellbook to reference that has an uncommon+ spell in it, you can treat it as a common spell during daily spell preparation. It seems to circumvent the need to learn it.That section is a general rule discussing traditions. Since we are told to go by specific rules, I follow those listed in the class and description for learn a spell.
But if you can get that pushed through, I'd go for it. It's too expensive as a wizard to acquire spells. I've been spending quite a bit to fill my spellbook with lower level spells. I usually wait until I reach a level where the lower level spells are cheap. With the cost of acquisition then the cost of writing them in, it can be quite costly. If that is an easier and cheaper way, go for it.
What an odd way to look at it. To me differentiating between specific and general is easier when one of them only applies in specific situations. For example, when a cleric prepares spells are they going to have a spellbook with uncommon+ spells in it? Probably not. So the general situation is "from the common spells on the divine spell list or from other divine spells to which you gain access". With a unique situation wherein they have a spellbook that has uncommon+ spells in it that allows the Cleric to treat those spells as common spells during preparation.
Note that this doesn't apply to a wizard...ish. A wizard prepares spells from 'your' spellbook. The question that arises is what qualifies as 'your spellbook'? If you kill an enemy wizard and take their spellbook, can it be considered 'your spellbook' now? Spellbooks only contain 100 pages of spells. There exist more than 100 spells. At some point a wizard will probably need another spellbook. If they get a second one, are they both 'your spellbook'?
How much does this incredibly arcane rules discussion actually have to do with the casters vs martial balance?
I feel like we’ve got lost in the weeds.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much does this incredibly arcane rules discussion actually have to do with the casters vs martial balance?
I feel like we’ve got lost in the weeds.
To some extent the conversation is nothing but weeds, so I don't think it's a huge deal.
To some extent the conversation is nothing but weeds, so I don't think it's a huge deal.How much does this incredibly arcane rules discussion actually have to do with the casters vs martial balance?
I feel like we’ve got lost in the weeds.
Sorry about that. Conversations tend to wander. When people disagree it can be hard to swap threads to the right forum. Maybe it did everyone a favour and killed off the 185th thread on this topic.
Actually, based on spellbook section in the rules (not the item entry), it seems to say that if you have a spellbook to reference that has an uncommon+ spell in it, you can treat it as a common spell during daily spell preparation. It seems to circumvent the need to learn it.That section is a general rule discussing traditions. Since we are told to go by specific rules, I follow those listed in the class and description for learn a spell.
But if you can get that pushed through, I'd go for it. It's too expensive as a wizard to acquire spells. I've been spending quite a bit to fill my spellbook with lower level spells. I usually wait until I reach a level where the lower level spells are cheap. With the cost of acquisition then the cost of writing them in, it can be quite costly. If that is an easier and cheaper way, go for it.
What an odd way to look at it. To me differentiating between specific and general is easier when one of them only applies in specific situations. For example, when a cleric prepares spells are they going to have a spellbook with uncommon+ spells in it? Probably not. So the general situation is "from the common spells on the divine spell list or from other divine spells to which you gain access". With a unique situation wherein they have a spellbook that has uncommon+ spells in it that allows the Cleric to treat those spells as common spells during preparation.
Note that this doesn't apply to a wizard...ish. A wizard prepares spells from 'your' spellbook. The question that arises is what qualifies as 'your spellbook'? If you kill an enemy wizard and take their spellbook, can it be considered 'your spellbook' now? Spellbooks only contain 100 pages of spells. There exist more than 100 spells. At some point a wizard will probably need another spellbook. If they get a second one, are they both 'your spellbook'?
Not sure what you mean. Cleric learns the spell whether it's uncommon or rare and it is now on their list per the rules for Learn a Spell. It's not an unclear rule. List casters are a very specific group that includes the cleric and druid. There is no rule requiring they have a spellbook to prepare spells they have learned that become part of their list whether uncommon or rare. Specific rules explain how that situation works.
They seem to have that covered with the Borrow an Arcane Spell skill action if you just want to prepare a spell out of someone else's spellbook. If you want to learn the spell, you use the Learn a Spell skill action with the spellbook the source of the spell. Pay the cost. You can now prepare it from whatever spellbook you have it in that you can access.
Contributor
|
Sorry about that. Conversations tend to wander. When people disagree it can be hard to swap threads to the right forum. Maybe it did everyone a favour and killed off the 185th thread on this topic.To some extent the conversation is nothing but weeds, so I don't think it's a huge deal.How much does this incredibly arcane rules discussion actually have to do with the casters vs martial balance?
I feel like we’ve got lost in the weeds.
In my mind the best thing about this discussion was how it ruthlessly kept beating today's forum spam attack for the top of this forum.
Hmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, based on spellbook section in the rules (not the item entry), it seems to say that if you have a spellbook to reference that has an uncommon+ spell in it, you can treat it as a common spell during daily spell preparation. It seems to circumvent the need to learn it.That section is a general rule discussing traditions. Since we are told to go by specific rules, I follow those listed in the class and description for learn a spell.
But if you can get that pushed through, I'd go for it. It's too expensive as a wizard to acquire spells. I've been spending quite a bit to fill my spellbook with lower level spells. I usually wait until I reach a level where the lower level spells are cheap. With the cost of acquisition then the cost of writing them in, it can be quite costly. If that is an easier and cheaper way, go for it.
What an odd way to look at it. To me differentiating between specific and general is easier when one of them only applies in specific situations. For example, when a cleric prepares spells are they going to have a spellbook with uncommon+ spells in it? Probably not. So the general situation is "from the common spells on the divine spell list or from other divine spells to which you gain access". With a unique situation wherein they have a spellbook that has uncommon+ spells in it that allows the Cleric to treat those spells as common spells during preparation.
Note that this doesn't apply to a wizard...ish. A wizard prepares spells from 'your' spellbook. The question that arises is what qualifies as 'your spellbook'? If you kill an enemy wizard and take their spellbook, can it be considered 'your spellbook' now? Spellbooks only contain 100 pages of spells. There exist more than 100 spells. At some point a wizard will probably need another spellbook. If they get a second one, are they both 'your spellbook'?
Not sure what you mean. Cleric learns the spell whether it's uncommon or rare and it is now on their list per the rules for Learn a Spell. It's not an unclear rule.
See you just keep missing this point. Are you actually reading the rules? Look at the specific words. Learn a spell adds it to your list. Spell preparation prepares a spell from the common spells of your traditions list. There are two gaps here. Think about it.
The first being your list is not the tradition's list.
The second being you prepare common spells from the list.
Adding an uncommon spell to your list is irrelevant on two counts.
In each class spell preparation goes on to mention you can prepare spells that you have access to, and learn a spell provides that access. Which closes the loop.
There is no rule requiring they have a spellbook to prepare spells they have learned that become part of their list whether uncommon or rare.
Nobody but you is saying that.
There are two rules that say you CAN, none that say you MUST. In spell book the item, and in the general rules on spells there is a box devoted to spell books.Specific rules explain how that situation works.
And you seem to think that the rule on Learn a Spell for all four traditions is somehow clearly more specific that the rule for preparing spells which differs in each class. Further that it overwrites and causes us to ignore the text written in the class.
That is just wrong. It can all work together with nothing contradicted. You just have to assume they skipped a few details here and there. Something they clearly do throughout the books.
They seem to have that covered with the Borrow an Arcane Spell skill action if you just want to prepare a spell out of someone else's spellbook. If you want to learn the spell, you use the Learn a Spell skill action with the spellbook the source of the spell. Pay the cost. You can now prepare it from whatever spellbook you have it in that you can access.
Thanks for finding the rule on Borrow a Spell I guess that supercedes my comments on using someone elses book. Except that it is limited to arcane.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Learning a Spell (the activity), adding the spell to the spell list, is a separate thing to using a spellbook to treat the spell as common (for a cleric or druid). Both allow you to prepare the uncommon+ spell. But, the spellbook reference method requires you to have the spellbook every time you want to prepare the spell. If you use the Learn a Spell activity to add the uncommon+ spell to your list, it doesn't require a spellbook for reference ever again because it then falls into the "spells which you have gained access" category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much does this incredibly arcane rules discussion actually have to do with the casters vs martial balance?
I feel like we’ve got lost in the weeds.
Ha! Any thread that goes on for this long always degenerates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there was a lot of rules flipping there because the players were talking about esoteric rules combinations.
In terms of just playing a wizard it's pretty straight forward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue with the whole spellbook thing is how we had to quote like 8 different sections just to figure out how this one thing works. Which is honestly insane amount of book flipping.
That is something that doesn't get talked about enough. In order to play a caster you have to flip through a bunch of pages just to kind of understand a bit of the rules, then still fail because you forgot about another rule. By comparison the biggest issue martials have is companions.
The only way to avoid that flipping is literally memorizing the rules, or actively having cheat sheets. Which just reinforces the whole "you have to master the system just to play properly".
******************
Before anyone says "but I didn't have issues" or "this doesn't affect a lot of players". No, this is clunky design and it only seems good if you have a computer/pdf where you can search for things. Heck that design principle is why Pathbuilder is so encouraged to even make characters in the first place, since it cuts down on all the page flipping.
Tell me about it. I'm despairing over Kingmaker kingdom rules at the moment. I need at least 4 windows open at different pages in the rules. I'd hate to think how bad it would be if I was using the physical book not the PDF. Then the players have separate rules with different page numbers. The last two sessions have just been rolling kingdon activities.
|
|
How much does this incredibly arcane rules discussion actually have to do with the casters vs martial balance?
I feel like we’ve got lost in the weeds.
While it has very little to do with the og topic, it is providing a slight recess from the og discussion. The benefit of a recess is that it allows all parties to begin making the same arguments at each other that they did before but bask in the illusion that they are new and fresh arguments.
I just like to debate as I imagine Gortle and Leo do. Nothing they stated is going to allow the use of Spell Substitution with a spellbook for clerics and druids, which started the original discussion as Leo was trying to hard sell the wizard's abilities beyond what they can do because he likes the PF2 version.
It will work in their home games if they so choose and doesn't really break anything. It would make the wizard a little more fun for some. If I played with someone that allowed it, wouldn't bother me a bit.
My original point was that other casters are more versatile than the wizard using the core rules as they are known to operate, at least the sorcerer and bard in that regard, especially so if you are playing to high level. Sorcerer and bard poaching off other spell lists allows them to fill more roles and thus allow more diverse groups to be built.
Tell me about it. I'm despairing over Kingmaker kingdom rules at the moment. I need at least 4 windows open at different pages in the rules. I'd hate to think how bad it would be if I was using the physical book not the PDF. Then the players have separate rules with different page numbers. The last two sessions have just been rolling kingdon activities.The biggest issue with the whole spellbook thing is how we had to quote like 8 different sections just to figure out how this one thing works. Which is honestly insane amount of book flipping.
That is something that doesn't get talked about enough. In order to play a caster you have to flip through a bunch of pages just to kind of understand a bit of the rules, then still fail because you forgot about another rule. By comparison the biggest issue martials have is companions.
The only way to avoid that flipping is literally memorizing the rules, or actively having cheat sheets. Which just reinforces the whole "you have to master the system just to play properly".
******************
Before anyone says "but I didn't have issues" or "this doesn't affect a lot of players". No, this is clunky design and it only seems good if you have a computer/pdf where you can search for things. Heck that design principle is why Pathbuilder is so encouraged to even make characters in the first place, since it cuts down on all the page flipping.
Have fun with that. I've had to write a bunch of modifications. So far it doesn't the payoff of first edition kingdom building rules which is causing the player that used to enjoy that part of kingdom building to lose interest. I may just let them build buildings without rolls and use rolls only for interesting tasks.
In the 1st edition Kingdom Building rules, it was a build lots of magic shops and become powerful. A little different in this one. I may wing it more to make it more interesting.
|
|
I just like to debate as I imagine Gortle and Leo do. Nothing they stated is going to allow the use of Spell Substitution with a spellbook for clerics and druids, which started the original discussion as Leo was trying to hard sell the wizard's abilities beyond what they can do because he likes the PF2 version.
It will work in their home games if they so choose and doesn't really break anything. It would make the wizard a little more fun for some. If I played with someone that allowed it, wouldn't bother me a bit.
My original point was that other casters are more versatile than the wizard using the core rules as they are known to operate, at least the sorcerer and bard in that regard, especially so if you are playing to high level. Sorcerer and bard poaching off other spell lists allows them to fill more roles and thus allow more diverse groups to be built.
Oh, I certainly do. Also, as was shown, some people bring out rules I didn't notice.
I guess I can't help but be curious, you said "using the core rules as they are known to operate", would you not allow Spell Blending or DBI to work on dedication spell slots? If not why not?