When using the Magical Shorthand skill feat to learn a new spell via Downtime, do you still need to have access to some form of source material (such as a scroll of the spell or a mentor who knows it)?
My GM says yes. He claims that nothing in Magical Shorthand obviates the need for source material as described in Learn A Spell. He fears that allowing it to work sans source material is too powerful for one feat, much less half a feat, as it could arguably allow a player to bypass the rarity system.
I say no. After all, needing to spend half a month of downtime to Learn a Spell, while still needing everything else Learn a Spell requires would make it functionally useless, very much like Eschew Materials is seen by most as functionally useless. I can't bring myself to believe that was the developers' intent. It seems clear to me that the feat was meant to represent someone investing a great deal of time to essentially research and invent the spell on their own, without any source material.
I do agree with the GM that it was not intended to bypass the Rarity system, and that one could only learn spells to which they have access (whether or not the source material itself is actually available).
We've both decided to seek out second opinions on the matter. What do you think?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your DM is right. Magical Shorthand is all about writing faster and learning faster, not about reading a new spell written in the clouds. You still need either someone to teach you or a grimoire or some other written source. Maybe you could summon a devil that would agree to teach you the spell - but that is beyond the purview of the Magical Shorthand feat.
It even specifically references the notion of availability at one point: "you choose a spell available to you to learn".
The speed at which you can learn new spells with this feat is lightning fast, and the downtime system is just gravy on top of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It even specifically references the notion of availability at one point: "you choose a spell available to you to learn".
This is the key to me. It's a part of the sentence about the "Earn Income"-like activity, and therefore cannot be separated from it. If the spell isn't available to you, then the rest of the sentence is irrelevant.
Note that it doesn't say a spell you have access to, which is a key word related to the rarity system, but specifically says it has to be available to you to learn, which sounds like the learn a spell activity to me.This seems to fit both with the flavor of the feat - learning spells more easily -, and with the rest of the mechanics of the feat, which are all about ways to make the learn a spell activity easier / better for you. The first part is making it quicker, while the second is making it so you can do it even when you're low on resources... provided you have the time, that is. Or, perhaps a better way of describing it is it's giving you a slight bump on your earn income activity if and only if you use that income to learn spells (assuming that your bonus in your tradition's associated skill is higher than your other earn income options).
Why would anyone ever use the second option then? 99.999% of the time, it would always be better to Lean a Spell in the traditional fashion. You would use just a few minutes rather than several weeks.
I can't imagine anyone EVER using that aspect of the feat now! Even if you were in that super rare situation where you had no access to money, you would have to be in that situation continuously for weeks and weeks for this aspect of the feat to make any difference at all. And even if you were in that situation, there probably aren't any mentors or scrolls either.
In any case, though it is worded slightly differently, I still believe the "you choose a spell available to learn" to be an informal reference to the Rarity system and access in general. It makes it so that the GM can still say "no" to a spell they don't want in their campaign. But for ye' old Common spell? You should be good to go.
EDIT: My GM also ruled that you need access to the resource in question for the entire duration. So you can't just walk into the library, study a spell scroll for a day, take a bunch of notes while trying to discern its mysteries, and then leave to finish your magical sleuthing by experimenting with the new magic in an open field where you're unlikely to harm someone. You need to have the scroll (or mentor, or other resource) with you during the entire process.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The feat really does two things; the first is to allow you to very quickly learn new spells, and likely is the more useful one. The second is to give you an alternative Earn an Income source that runs off of one of your best skills. You're comparing the second option to the wrong thing - it should be compared to using Craft or Perform to Earn an Income. If you've got a few weeks of downtime in town, you can work on learning your spells and get a small amount of money off of their total cost in the same way that the crafter can get some money off of their crafting. Compare it to a skill feat like Bargain Hunter - it's just giving you some way to use your best skills during downtime.
The advantage of the second part is regarding Earn Income and the availability of level-appropriate jobs in a given settlement. Say your wizard is 8th level. Maybe you're in a smallish settlement where 8th-level Earn Income tasks simply aren't available. With this feat, you can automatically accrue income as an 8th-level task towards the cost of the rare inks and parchments used to learn the spell and inscribe it in your spellbook.
As far as the availability of spells is concerned, at least in my home campaigns the main source of new spells is spellbooks looted from dead adversaries. After that, it's contact with NPC spellcasters who will accept to teach you spells in exchange for something. Or a scroll you can buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say your wizard is 8th level. Maybe you're in a smallish settlement where 8th-level Earn Income tasks simply aren't available. With this feat, you can ...
...do absolutely nothing since such a settlement likely doesn't have 4th-level scrolls or 7th-level casters capable of teaching the specific spells I want to learn any more than they have 8th-level tasks.
Why would anyone ever use the second option then? 99.999% of the time, it would always be better to Lean a Spell in the traditional fashion. You would use just a few minutes rather than several weeks.
I can't imagine anyone EVER using that aspect of the feat now!
Yup. I had forgotten that this half of the feat even existed.
To me, the important part of the feat is this:
If you fail to learn the spell, you can try again after 1 week or after you gain a level, whichever comes first.
Which is a drastic improvement over the default rules for learning a spell and failing the check.
Failure: You fail to learn the spell but can try again after you gain a level.
Very powerful for characters whose class key ability doesn't line up with their spellcasting tradition ability (Sorcerer, Oracle, Bard, some Witches, probably Summoner, MCD casters, likely some other things I have forgotten). Or for anyone who wants to prioritize boosting other skills in preference to their spellcasting tradition skill.
But you may have looted spellbooks from your adventure. Or the DM may have placed an NPC spellcaster nearby, regardless of settlement level.
But you're right, RD, sometimes you're simply S.O.L.
As written, the Magical Shorthand feat simply doesn't grant you access to whatever spells you might desire. You can grumble about that if you like, but getting access to spells to learn is part and parcel of the campaign. You need to talk to your DM and figure out how you can find more spells, and encourage him to leave you clues to places you can find spells to learn, either through negociation or more directly physical means.
Unless this is purely for theorycrafting. In which case you can ignore the rules on access, and assume your character gained access through campaign-linked means.
Basically this feels like complaining that the gravy on top of a 2nd level feat isn't by itself as powerful as a similar 7th level feat.
|
Yuup!
This society character had a very interesting time finding spells for his spellbook before they declared that the Grand Lodge was a resource. He found a Haste scroll during a scenario before he could cast 3rd level spells. I practically yelled dibs. Everyone was suuper confused. I then explained how it was difficult to have access to spells.
At the end of the day, without wide access, the spells you can learn consist of those you pick up at each level (your choice), and those you get in scroll or spellbook form. Magical Shorthand doesn't change that. Do remember that if you have party members that also cast spells, they can be a resource to learn spells from...sometimes....depending on their spells.
Also, magical Shorthand, in its downtime option, essentially saves you money from learning spells.
Do remember that if you have party members that also cast spells, they can be a resource to learn spells from...sometimes....depending on their spells.
This is a good point. What I'm curious about though is: Does it matter if they are a different class? From a different tradition?
Is fireball just fireball? Or is an arcane fireball different from a divine fireball? Can a cleric of Saranrae teach a wizard that spell? Why or why not?
Personally, I'd be inclined to allow it as a GM, as I hate too many layers of unnecessary complexity in a game that's supposed to be focused around fun (rather than homework), but I could easily see it varying from group to group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do remember that if you have party members that also cast spells, they can be a resource to learn spells from...sometimes....depending on their spells.This is a good point. What I'm curious about though is: Does it matter if they are a different class? From a different tradition?
Is fireball just fireball? Or is an arcane fireball different from a divine fireball? Can a cleric of Saranrae teach a wizard that spell? Why or why not?
Personally, I'd be inclined to allow it as a GM, as I hate too many layers of unnecessary complexity in a game that's supposed to be focused around fun (rather than homework), but I could easily see it varying from group to group.
Given a druid and a wizard can both cast fireball from the same scroll, I think allowing them to teach across traditions is fine. If it was an ally teaching you who also wanted to Aid your check, you might call for them to roll with the student's tradition skill, not the owner.
Side note, if you are multiclassing, Assurance might be the better pick over Magical Shorthand, because even trained proficiency will automatically succeed when your spell levels lag behind your character level.
|
Do remember that if you have party members that also cast spells, they can be a resource to learn spells from...sometimes....depending on their spells.This is a good point. What I'm curious about though is: Does it matter if they are a different class? From a different tradition?
Is fireball just fireball? Or is an arcane fireball different from a divine fireball? Can a cleric of Saranrae teach a wizard that spell? Why or why not?
Personally, I'd be inclined to allow it as a GM, as I hate too many layers of unnecessary complexity in a game that's supposed to be focused around fun (rather than homework), but I could easily see it varying from group to group.
There's nothing in the Learn a Spell activity that requires your sparring partner to practice the same tradition.
A cleric or druid that knows a lot of spells automatically is a good friend for a wizard.
A cleric or druid that knows a lot of spells automatically is a good friend for a wizard.
I've seen GMs disallow it on that basis alone.
When using the Magical Shorthand skill feat to learn a new spell via Downtime, do you still need to have access to some form of source material (such as a scroll of the spell or a mentor who knows it)?
My GM says yes.
"Rule 1: The GM is always right. Rule 2: If the GM is wrong, refer to rule 1."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Rule 1: The GM is always right. Rule 2: If the GM is wrong, refer to rule 1."When using the Magical Shorthand skill feat to learn a new spell via Downtime, do you still need to have access to some form of source material (such as a scroll of the spell or a mentor who knows it)?
My GM says yes.
*Laughs hysterically for several long moments before wiping the tears away*
Good one! Funniest BS I've heard in a long time.
"Rule 1: The GM is always right. Rule 2: If the GM is wrong, refer to rule 1."When using the Magical Shorthand skill feat to learn a new spell via Downtime, do you still need to have access to some form of source material (such as a scroll of the spell or a mentor who knows it)?
My GM says yes.
*Laughs hysterically for several long moments before wiping the tears away*
Good one! Funniest BS I've heard in a long time.
With that kinda attitude you wouldn't last long in one of my games, or a lot of other people I know XD
That being said, the premise of your original post already covered Lycar's point, so I don't really get what they're saying.
We've both decided to seek out second opinions on the matter.
If the GM isn't confident in their ruling, then there's nothing wrong about getting other people's opinions. Personally I'd just grow a back-bone and trust my own judgement after hearing the player out briefly, but to each their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is confident in their reasoning. I am also comfortable listening to other perspectives, but so far I have yet to hear any argument that convinces me that you don’t need to have access to the spell you want to learn. I believe being able to essentially earn income with you primary spell casting skill, at your own level is worthwhile, especially when paired with the ability to learn spells quickly and retry in a week.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having an adversarial relationship between players and GMs is a squiffy basis for a group. Way back in the days of yore the game was built with an intended adversarial role. Nowadays, I'm confident that most designers would say that their game is not intended that way.
If your GM wants to make rulings that ignore or overrule system rules, that is there prerogative. At some point, in home games, rules arguments are irrelevant. You should probably, instead, have conversations about what the GMs vision for the game is, or why they seem to want to limit the players heavily.
Rules are merely a tool to facilitate a fun game. Trust is a pivotal aspect to the game. If there is not trust between the player(s) and GM that is what needs to be addressed, not rules.
Having an adversarial relationship between players and GMs is a squiffy basis for a group.
Absolutely true. I've known DMs who were trying to sadistically screw over their players in the end, and it ain't pretty.
Way back in the days of yore the game was built with an intended adversarial role.
No, it wasn't. Way back in the mid-70s we also knew that the best way to play was in a cooperative, non-adversarial way. You may have known some people who adopted an adversarial style, but the game itself was never "built" that way.
Just sayin'.
Also, on the topic of learning spells from spellcasters of other traditions: there is nothing stopping a wizard from learning a spell from a druid, per RAW. If your DM doesn't want to allow it, fine, but do make it clear that he's imposing a house rule, and that if he's going to make it that much harder for you to learn spells, he'd better make some allowances for other methods, like granting access to an appropriately-leveled NPC spellcaster from time to time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where did this adversarial stuff come from all of a sudden?
I was merely indicating, in my own way, that an "always right" member is a toxic thing to have in any group, roleplaying or otherwise.
"Rule 1: The GM is always right. Rule 2: If the GM is wrong, refer to rule 1."*Laughs hysterically for several long moments before wiping the tears away*
Good one! Funniest BS I've heard in a long time.
If you consider playing the game that the Game Master prepares for you and your fellow players BS, why bother playing?
No really, the GM ultimately is the final arbiter on what is and what isn't working in their campaign, and unless a ruling violates verisimilitude or is applied inconsistently, you have no grounds to complain.
And as far as this thread goes, well, until this post I have not found one that disagrees with your GM, so... Will you go with the majority opinion or do you still have misgivings about their arguments?
Adversarial gaming goes both ways you know.
I was merely indicating, in my own way, that an "always right" member is a toxic thing to have in any group, roleplaying or otherwise.
So how do you feel about, say, sports then? You know, the whole umpire/referee thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you feel about, say, sports then? You know, the whole umpire/referee thing?
They have instant replays BECAUSE people feel that way. There are also appeals on rulings from ref's/umps for most sports I know. Anyone can make a bad call so claiming otherwise seems to me fundamentally incorrect.
Where did this adversarial stuff come from all of a sudden?
I was merely indicating, in my own way, that an "always right" member is a toxic thing to have in any group, roleplaying or otherwise.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but this is in no way how it came off to me, (if anything you were giving me more of those kind of vibes than Lycar both in this and other threads).
First of all, it was rude to Lycar, who was just expressing their opinion (a little boldly, but still), to dismiss, laugh at, and otherwise call the entire point BS.
Additionally, the view-point expressed indicated (again, to me) that you see the GM as having an equal amount of power and control over the game, and being beholden to the rules even if they don't like them. Yes: toxic GMs can exist, but, to Lycar's point, if you don't trust your GM and vice-versa, then there's a bigger problem here and the game's inevitably going to suffer for it.
A quick correction / piece of advise during the game, or a slightly longer, but still concise discussion after the game is totally fine, but going into it with the mindset of getting your way / proving the GM wrong rather than trying to simply inform them of your viewpoint (and by extension, one of their player's viewpoints, which they shouldn't take lightly), and accepting WHATEVER decision they end up making is problematic to say the least.
For professional sports yeah, the vast majority of people playing sports don't get replays and frequently don't get appeals.So how do you feel about, say, sports then? You know, the whole umpire/referee thing?They have instant replays BECAUSE people feel that way. There are also appeals on rulings from ref's/umps for most sports I know. Anyone can make a bad call so claiming otherwise seems to me fundamentally incorrect.
Where is "professional" coming in? I'm not playing pathfinder professionally so why would I hold any sport comparison to that?
But even if it where, there ARE rules for appeals and/or review in them: for instance, FIFA has VAR [video assistant referee] which it says it's good for "Goals, Penalty Decisions, Direct Red Card Incidents and Mistaken Identity". VAR can 'recommend a referee decision/incident should be reviewed', can 'review video footage and advises the referee via headset what the video shows'.
MLB has instant-replay review which ca be initiated by a team's manager to have calls reviewed by the Replay Command Center in New York City. In fact, NFL, the MLB, the NBA, and the NHL have some kind of instant replay review system.
Professional came from you bringing up replay and appeals.
Nothing about appeals necessitates professional [I can make an appeal in a little league game]. As to replays, NCAA has them so you made the wrong assumption.
Most sports leagues don't have those
Replays? I agree. Appeals? No, I disagree. Again, I can't think of a sport that runs a league but doesn't have an appeals system in place. Now if you're talking a stickball game in the local cul de sac, sure but I'd call that informal not amateur.
Every appeal I've seen in a little league game resulted in a coach being removed.
And? Did that make it less of an appeal or a questioning of the ump/ref's ruling?
NCAA athletes are basically professional now that they can be compensated.
College athletes can earn money from their name, image and likeness: full stop. They can't PLAY for cash, hence not professional much like an Olympian can have sponsorships and endorsements while still being able to participate in the games.
College sports are 100% a business considering how much money they make schools.
Don't stop at college: there is a reason you see the arts programs cut in high schools but you'll never see that in the sports ones [interscholastic sports is a big industry with an income of $5 billion a year]. Parents spend $671 per child annually on sports on average. Tickets for the games are $6-$8. Advertising banners can get you $1,500. Booster clubs can then pad your numbers by, maybe, $50,000 more. Then toss in alumni donation... It' all about the Benjamins...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is there anyone other than Raving Dork who interprets Magical Shorthand as allowing you to learn a spell that you do not have access to in the form of someone else who knows it or a recorded version of the spell (scroll, spellbook, etc)?
It seems like there is nearly a consensus on the rule as intended here, and that the question of value of the feat's benefit of letting you learn spells as an earn income activity is more related to the campaign structure and the ways different GMs use/provide time for downtime, earn income, and access to spells?
So is there anyone other than Raving Dork who interprets Magical Shorthand as allowing you to learn a spell that you do not have access to in the form of someone else who knows it or a recorded version of the spell (scroll, spellbook, etc)?
LOL You want to actually talk about the thread question? Sure. Myself, I don't read it Ravingdork's way.
I am currently a player of a Kobold Wizard and would very much like to interpret it that way.
Alas I cannot in good conscience, it is very clear that this skill feat is meant to facilitate spell learning, as well as mitigate the cost of adding spells to your spellbook (and these costs can add up! so I'm definitely taking it!) and not give you access to common spells as a downtime activity without securing a source.
So it would seem that, at least so far, nobody is supporting Ravingdork's interpretation of the feat.
So the 'audience joker' goes in favour of the GM's ruling.
The question then is: Will that settle the matter at Ravingdork's table?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am raving dork’s GM. There is a cleric in the party so his character has access to a lot of spells, on top of having continued to find extra scrolls sat multiple times in the campaign. I don’t think there is really a lot more to work out. He and I talked about reaching out to see how others read the feat, I think this has accomplished that.
He and I talked about reaching out to see how others read the feat, I think this has accomplished that.
Indeed it has.
I was not expecting it to be quite so one-sided. :P
And to be clear, no one is discussing Access, but rather, actual possession. For the purposes of this discussion, the two are distinctly different.
He and I talked about reaching out to see how others read the feat, I think this has accomplished that.Indeed it has.
I was not expecting it to be quite so one-sided. :P
I was honestly surprised that anyone would try to argue that access to the spell formula would not require to actually possess a copy of said spell formula (even if by proxy).
So I must say, it did come off as someone trying to 'get one over' their GM, hence my irritated reaction. It does seem, however, that that impression was a bit of an overreaction, so apologies for that.
He and I talked about reaching out to see how others read the feat, I think this has accomplished that.Indeed it has.
I was not expecting it to be quite so one-sided. :P
I was honestly surprised that anyone would try to argue that access to the spell formula would not require to actually possess a copy of said spell formula (even if by proxy).
So I must say, it did come off as someone trying to 'get one over' their GM, hence my irritated reaction. It does seem, however, that that impression was a bit of an overreaction, so apologies for that.
I make mistakes from time to time, but I'm nothing if not honest.