Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Mistborn]

I think the difference is that Archivists being able to go dumpster diving is RIA while the Wizard version is just RAW. The Achivist class explicitly says you can copy any divine spell. The fact that you can do this as a wizard is not something the writers intended.

[FatR]

Uh... no. There is a rule that says they can cast spells from that list. There is no rule that they can't cast anything else.

You seriously think that using this sort of hideously tortured semantics can win you any argument points?

Looking at the archivist and the wizard, the intent and the letter of the rulers are crystal clear:

"A wizard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers
and bards), which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list (page 192)."

"An archivist casts divine spells, drawn primarily from the cleric spell list although he can eventually uncover, learn, and prepare noncleric divine spells."

Anyone who is not engaging in arguing for the sake of argument/Internet dickwaving contest can, without a slightest problem, conclude, that the wizard uses his own list, and the archivist uses the cleric list by default but is supposed to eventually dredge other divine lists for spells.

Now, there can be non-retarded arguments why archivist is measurably worse than wizard. The main one being - when those classes are played within the bounds of common practical optimization, the archivist is stuck with a spell list that is a good deal weaker and for exploiting which fully he doesn't have a proper chassis. The archivist only shines at a narrow band of games, where the accepted level of optimization is high enough for cherry-picking things from every supplement to be allowed, but not high enough to reach the realm where every spellcaster plunders every other spellcaster's tricks and the GM has to reinvent the whole game because even retarded shit from Deities & Demigods might just fail to touch the party. And you might argue that Arcane Thesis and more bonus feats just make the wizard win even in that band.

So why you are using the clearly retarded argument instead?

[Grek]

"A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. "

It specifies wizard spellbooks only for the spellbook option but no class restriction on the magic scroll option. By RAW, any magic scroll the wizard deciphers works just fine as long as it isn't from her prohibited schools.

[FatR]

"A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. "

This does not contradict "A wizard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and bards), which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list". At all. If a book has two separate non-contradictory statements, any rational man will assume that both are true. The only thing that can be proven by arguing that RAW supports a wizard casting spells not "drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list" (RAW by default at least, not counting high-op shenanigans) is the man making the argument not being rational.

[Insomniac]

I would say that for the Wizard, it clearly seems as if the intent, the Rules As Intended, are that the Wizard only gets Arcane spells off the Sorcerer/Wizard list. The Archivist seems to have both as a Rules as Intended and Rules as Written means of getting Divine spells from other classes into its spellbook.

Both classes break down when you try to do funky stuff like...

Classify a variant of spell-casting, like Divine Bard, to get "Divine" Bard spells.

Take a tortuous, legalese, gotcha interpretation of something that the rules might have possibly said to get spells into the Wizard book. The Wizard wasn't intended to do this stuff, I don't think.

Edit: Personally, I wouldn't allow this. Just simple Rule Zero it as a GM. Look, the Prestige Classed Wizard/Pathfinder Wizard is already a freakin' Wizard. It doesn't need to get more versatile and strong.

[erik]

It would have cost them almost nothing to specify arcane spells as being what can be copied into the wizard spellbook if that was what was intended. Yet every opportunity that copying spells into the book is mentioned they didn't bother to specify that they need be arcane, even when they bother specifying that they can copy not just a spellbook, but a wizard's spellbook. They had no qualms about being extra specific when the opportunity presents when writing those phrases.

It's not an argument I live or die by as it is quite weak, but even still it is stronger than saying without any evidence, "Oh, no, that's not what they intended." Unless whoever wrote the lines that give carte blanche to wizards cares to state what their intention was, all we are left with are weak arguments in favor, and even less for the opposition, like resorting to ad hominem in lieu of an argument.

[Insomniac]

I don't think somebody advocating that interpretation is stupid and by the rules it even looks like it could be the correct one. But Wizards really don't need any more power, for God's sake.

When you give extra spell access through things like Spell to Power Erudite, the game goes out the window.

[Kaelik]

A.) Classes are ranked according to the SGT, unless they're an unusual build like the bard in which case we'll just go with our gut call. None of this crap about vague versatility or winning their one task super-hard.

The Same Game Test is arbitrary in exactly the same way that Kaelik is complaining about. Saying that a rogue passed the SGT and a fighter failed it is just claiming "once I built an awesome rogue" and "once I built a shitty fighter".

Technically it isn't, since there is absolutely no chance that someone will build a Rogue and play it through the SGT, and then claim that because a different Rogue could have scored passed different challenges but failed some of the ones he passed, therefore The Rogue should be given 100%.

Unlike JaronK with Sorcerers. That is a significant improvement even if there are still problems.

[erik]

While wizards don't need any more power, they aren't exactly overpowered by having access to add divine spells to their list. It is a tiny power bump in the grand scheme of things.

If the wizard winds up thoroughly stepping on cleric toes by prepping only cleric spells then they have just fucked themselves since they should have just been clerics and gotten better HD, armor use, better BAB and weapons (if they cared) and better saves. It would be much more overpowered to be a cleric who instead gets to add wizard spells to his list. Some more situational versatility if you want to prepare less battle winning spells.

So I don't fear that wizards getting a couple more spells that may be on par with their already extant spells is blowing things out of the water. That happens every new book that adds spells anyway.

[Insomniac]

Man, I don't see why Archivists are "shitty." Are they Wizards or Clerics? No. Are they SHITTY?!

They're a 1d6 full casting off Intelligence class with 2 good Saves and neat little class abilities.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The thing is, there are very few areas where an Archivist is even a modest improvement over a basic cleric.

First things first: you don't get every spell on the cleric list, unlike actual clerics. That's by itself a gigantic kick in the nuts. Aside from the fact that this, outside of a select few cheese combos, makes them inferior in gestalt to a cleric this also really fucking hurts for the first five levels of the game. You know, where 90% of the games end. Next, you already have to cut into your bullshit allotment just to have the class in the game and there's not much in the Heroes of Horror otherwise. You rely on DM Pity or the help of a friend to do the biggest thing of the class, and while your class abilities aren't awful or even mediocre they don't have a killer app like Wildshaping or even a potential killer app like Channel Energy or Familiar.

Archivists do have some saving graces. There are some seriously awesome druid and shugenja spells out there and you can get them with a minimum of hassle. However, unless you're abusing some cheese loop or have a lot of DM Pity they're flat-out weaker than clerics. And not a modest amount weaker like sorcerers compared to wizards, but a significant amount weaker like shugenjas compared to beguilers. Me, I'd rather use my bullshit allotment on something that has more internal efficacy like the Spell Compendium or Complete Divine.

[NineInchNall]

Healers are a full casting class.
Healers get a d8 hit die.
Healers get 4+Int mod skill points per level.
Healers get two good saves.
Healers get a bunch of neat class abilities (actually more than the Archivist, whose table is padded with extra uses per day), including an intelligent companion creature.
High level Healers can cast gate.

Your reasoning fails because Healers are horrible.

[Kaelik]

Man, I don't see why Archivists are "shitty." Are they Wizards or Clerics? No. Are they SHITTY?!

They're a 1d6 full casting off Intelligence class with 2 good Saves and neat little class abilities.

They are a MAD caster, with a worse chassis than the Cleric, who most only gets cleric spells and not even as many of those, but can dip into the often superior Druid list pretty easily.

They are basically worse than a Cleric. The one person that at one time said Archivist was shit was probably using hyperbole, or possibly talking about the Artificer, which actually is a pile of shit in a shit pile box.

But either way, calm the fuck down, the specifics about how Archivists are worse than Beguilers, Dread Necros, and other "Tier 3" things is not particularly important.

[Insomniac]

It just gets repeatedly stated that they are shit. They look kind of cool to me. They're a big downgrade from a Cleric, but still.

Does anybody know when Pathfinder 2.0 is coming out?

[Kaelik]

It just gets repeatedly stated that they are shit. They look kind of cool to me. They're a big downgrade from a Cleric, but still.

It was said one time by one person specifically referring to an argument someone else could make, but not one that he was personally making. So maybe you should try to follow the conversation better before you try to ask why people are saying anything.

[rasmuswagner]

It would have cost them almost nothing to specify arcane spells as being what can be copied into the wizard spellbook if that was what was intended. Yet every opportunity that copying spells into the book is mentioned they didn't bother to specify that they need be arcane, even when they bother specifying that they can copy not just a spellbook, but a wizard's spellbook. They had no qualms about being extra specific when the opportunity presents when writing those phrases.

But it* still contradicts what is written elsewhere (as pointed out by FatR a few posts up), whereas the sane interpretation (backed by the stats of every wizard published ever) solves the contradiction.

Now, IF you were a total shitweasel, you'd argue that "A wizard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and bards), which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list" is a permissive statement, as in "this sentence states A. It does not state Not Not A", or however the fuck you'd express that in formal logics. To which the obvious rebuttal is "Fuck you. I will make you eat your fucking character sheet. You only have a digital copy on your iPad? Sucks to be you, i guess". Or, more diplomatically, "Your argument is the same shit as the poorly defined Dead condition bullshit".

Any argument that takes as a presupposition that the writers are good programmers or lawyers, despite the evidence to the contrary, is automatically retarded, dishonest or both.


*"it" being the claim that wizards can copy divine scrolls into their spellbook and subsequently cast the spells.

[Username17]

It would have cost them almost nothing to specify arcane spells as being what can be copied into the wizard spellbook if that was what was intended. Yet every opportunity that copying spells into the book is mentioned they didn't bother to specify that they need be arcane, even when they bother specifying that they can copy not just a spellbook, but a wizard's spellbook. They had no qualms about being extra specific when the opportunity presents when writing those phrases.

But it* still contradicts what is written elsewhere (as pointed out by FatR a few posts up), whereas the sane interpretation (backed by the stats of every wizard published ever) solves the contradiction.

No. For the last fucking time, FatR is just arguing in a deliberately deceitful way by cutting off the quote of the "Spells" section at the first sentence (which directs you to page 192) while not continuing the quote to the last sentence that tells you that you should read the "Preparing Wizard Spells" section on page 177. There is no contradiction. The expanded rules for wizard spell learning and preparation are referenced in the very section FatR is quoting. He is just electing to cut out that part of the quote because he is an asshole.

It's exactly as convincing as claiming that all of a Fighter's feats have to come from the [Fighter] list by quoting the section that says your bonus feats have to come from that list and then cutting it off before you get to the part where it reminds you that your other feats don't have to come from that list.

The arguments against Wizards being able to learn from Cleric scrolls (much less Naga or Dragon scrolls) are the following:

• I'm pretty sure that it's RAI that Wizards can only learn Wizard spells and/or research their own new spells. Because they are wizards and the list says wizard on it.
• Wizards are by most meaningful measures the most powerful class in the game. Anything even slightly sniff worthy from the Wizard's arsenal should be tossed out as a public service.
• The rules for learning Wizard spells in the Rules Compendium are different, and we're using those.

The "argument" that the first sentence of the "spells" ability writeup has a page citation to the wizard list and therefore you can ignore the last sentence of the same fucking ability writeup that gives a page citation to the wizards and spell preparation rules is so laughable that it's not even an argument. The first two of the bulleted arguments are actually pretty good. I mean, they aren't intellectually rigorous and they are in no way backed up in the text. But they're arguments you can make with a straight face and if you make them you'll almost certainly win the discussion at any table you play at. You don't have the text on your side, but you've got "feels" and also probably game balance and justice.

The insistence people have of claiming that the actual text backs up the interpretation they want to be correct is just fucking bizarre. No, it doesn't fucking say the shit that FatR and similar mouth breathers are claiming it does. And it doesn't matter, because the non-text arguments are usually good enough.

-Username17

[ishy]

It's exactly as convincing as claiming that all of a Fighter's feats have to come from the [Fighter] list by quoting the section that says your bonus feats have to come from that list and then cutting it off before you get to the part where it reminds you that your other feats don't have to come from that list.
-Username17

Well, lets some feats bullshit.

Each 1st-level character starts with a feat. Table 5–1: Feats (page 90) lists all feats, their prerequisites (if any), and a brief description.

These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats on Table 5–1: Feats (page 90).

I guess since all feats are on page 90, the list on page 91 is not rules valid or something. Also you're never allowed to select feats from splats or the MM I guess.

[K]

There is a fourth argument against Wizards learning divine spells from scrolls and that is: "the rules are poorly written and a clear interpretation is impossible because of the ambiguity, demanding a per DM ruling." It's not as a satisfying as any other option, but it's the one I've always held.

Most of the optimization stupidity in RPGs that I've seen has been because people make the logic mistake of interpreting ambiguity or a lack of rules as permission.

As for archivists not having good spells in levels 1-5, it's only true in campaigns where DMs are not followijg the magic item purchasing rules from the DMG. Scrolls of the best low-level spells are crazy cheap and easily available in one-horse towns and shit-farming settlements because the rules assume perfect access to all possible items and the caps on even the small settlements is sufficient.

[NineInchNall]

As for archivists not having good spells in levels 1-5, it's only true in campaigns where DMs are not followijg the magic item purchasing rules from the DMG. Scrolls of the best low-level spells are crazy cheap and easily available in one-horse towns and shit-farming settlements because the rules assume perfect access to all possible items and the caps on even the small settlements is sufficient.

Most DMs I've played with or heard of don't follow those rules. I do, but that's because I want to encourage people to learn to play the game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Even if an Archivist has perfect scroll access, who gives a shit? Unless you're doing a lot of dumpster-diving, it's not like being to cherry-pick from the druid and paladin spell lists will make you that much better than a wizard or a cleric that has access to the Spell Compendium. Blowing 750 gp at level 4 for five 2nd-level spells isn't financially crippling, but it's not peanuts, either. They're MAD casters, too, so unless you're rolling Da' Vane stats it's likely that by level 5 or so you'll have only a +3 bonus in both of your casting stats. They also have no shield proficiency, only medium armor, d6 hp, and 1/2 BAB so unlike clerics or druids can't really help out in the front lines. Dark Knowledge is admittedly a rather usable ability.

But from a practical CharOp perspective, there's very little reason to roll with an Archivist, especially at low levels. Having Entangle and Hold Person on your spell list is indeed quite nifty, but it doesn't really compensate for all of their other disadvantages. If I wanted to make a low-level blaster cleric I'd just pick a good casting domain and pick some expansion option that let me spontaneously convert spells to domain spells. 3.5E D&D offered at least three ways to do so, all in readily accessible books.

[name_here]

The pfsrd actually does definitively resolve the wizard issue in the class description.

Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists (see Magic).

I'm guessing that was errata, since 3.5's SRD has no such line.

[ishy]

Oh yeah, pathfinder takes it to crazy town.

New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?

No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.

Which means creatures like golden dragons or royal naga's can't cast the spells they are listed with anymore.

But I believe the response to that was to ignore the rules when it comes to monsters.

[NineInchNall]

Blowing 750 gp at level 4 for five 2nd-level spells isn't financially crippling, but it's not peanuts, either.

Actually, it'd be 150gp per 2nd level scroll and another 200gp for the inks and stuff used to copy it into the prayerbook. So each 2nd level spell effectively costs 350gp. five 2nd level spells at level 4 is 1750gp of your budget, which really ain't cheap.

[K]

It's a mistake to see an archivist as a poor cleric when you should see it as a buff wizard.

For example, you can just wear full plate and a tower shield and cast Sleep and Grease before 2nd level assuming a little luck with the loot and the ability to buy items. That is a straight out-of-the box app using Domains that requires very little DM favor (basically just using the Spell Compendium). Who the fuck cares about hitting things with a weapon with a MAD non-warrior character when you could cast encounter-winning spells every turn while in heavy armor?

Second, the economics of an archivist are pretty nice with only a little thought. Rather than buy scrolls of high-level spells, you can just buy divine writings at 150 GP a page using the straight Wizard spell copying rules that Archivist function calls.... and if you assume the existence of multiclass arcane/Archivist Geometers, then divine writings are always 150 gp regardless of spell level if you are willing to accept slightly higher DCs to learn (scrolls of 1st level spells are always going to be cheaper than writings).

The spell selection of an Archivist is equal to "all the spells ever" because there are lots of divine classes that get to add spells to their list from other lists. For example, just the Fiend-blooded PrC from the same book as the Archivist proves that divine versions of every illusion, necromancy, enchantment, or fire descriptor spell in any spell list could exist as a divine writing because a high-enough level Fiend-blooded divine caster cast could add those spells to his divine spell list.

On a related note, I've always wanted to play a Geometer who used the rules for tattooing his spell formulas on his body from Complete Arcane. I'm pretty sure that I could get all of a reasonable campaign's worth of spells onto my character's body.