Shonn@SagaBorn's page

I think Jerra and phantom1592 are both onto something here. (Oh and yes I am a GM, so was asking with respect to Pathfinder adventures I am writing).

I have time and again heard other GMs or players/GMs in forums state that other magic user's spellbooks were writing in "magic" and that a mage that finds them has to use "read magic" to read them. (Also note I come from old school 1st ed. D&D, so we didn't have spellcraft checks and skills and abilities, etc. back then).

But as Jerra pointed out that a successful spellcraft check would allow one to read it, and phantom made the analogy to a complicated calculus equation, perhaps I was misinterpreting the word "magic". If the writing is about magic and is very complex to understand, as opposed to being written by a magical method, then it makes sense that a successful spellcraft check (which is really just seeing if you were smart enough/high enough level/well studied enough to understand or comprehend its meaning) would allow you to read it.

In this interpretation, the "read magic" spell would somehow boost one's ability to read and comprehend writings about complex magical subjects. (Which doesn't actually make sense, but since it is magic and make believe I guess it doesn't have to make sense, right?)
But it could explain why everyone has always said everything written by mages in their spellbooks, etc. was written in "magic" and there doesn't seem to be a spell, skill, or ability that would allow them to write magic in this way. (I don't think the scribe scroll skill really applies to writing in one's spell book, only to specifically scribing a spell into a scroll).

So that may be mystery solved. Opinions?

Thanks David. I had not looked at those, but just did. They are both cool spells, but not what I was searching for.

Most everyone is probably familiar with the "Read Magic" spell, which basically allows the caster to:

(1) decipher magical inscriptions on objects ... that would otherwise be unintelligible; or
(2) identify glyph of warding, greater glyph of warding and symbol spells (with the appropriate Spellcraft check)

Ignoring the glyphs and symbols, which would be inscribed with a spell, my question is, where do these other "unintelligible", "magical inscriptions" come from and how were they created?

Specifically, is there a spell that a mage has to cast to write something down in this magical inscription so that nobody else can read it?

I have googled and searched for terms like "scribe magic" and "write magic", but couldn't find anything that matched.

Are there any skills, abilities, class abilities, etc. that I have missed that allow a mage to write in magic?

If the answer is no to these questions. Then a mage can just write in a magical language nobody can understand. And it seems like no other mage can understand it either, unless they cast the read magic spell. This doesn't make sense to me. Unless you cast a spell to magically hide the meaning, it should not take a magical spell to decipher the meaning if you are a mage and schooled in reading the magical writings of other mages. This all seems to beg the existence of a "scribe magic" spell that I can't seem to find.

I am really looking for official RAW here, not house rules, but opinions and debate are welcome.

Thanks Davrion, I had considered doing that, but I have run adventures from modules that had no numbering or alphabetizing on their sections, and it was a nightmare to me to flip back and forth to try and find where the "Ambush at the River" even was (just an example off the top of my head).

We could reference by page number of course, but that is problematic when you are writing the adventure in MS Word or online on Google Docs etc. and are not the person who will be doing the final layout in say Adobe InDesign or whatever. Because that will totally change all page numbers. So it is better to refer to Part 2, Section 4, Event C, etc. because it saves headaches on making sure there are no errors in the page numbering.

Very good point Wheldrake. As I was explaining to PK earlier, all my Acts are large sandboxes where all the nodes or scenes are at the same basic CR, only when going to a NEW Act do the players need to maybe have gone up a level. And if that is the case, I do warn the GMs to give them the opportunity to level up or run some more random encounters or additional events if they are not there yet. I do appreciate your comment though, to remind me to be watchful of that scenario.

Of course in the real world, one never knows when they are coming up against a foe, who is more skilled. And in my home campaigns, I train players early on not to assume everything they run up against is beatable. They have to learn when to back down or sneak away. But in my written and published adventures, I know most GMs don't want to waste time pitting their players against a foe that is way out of their league, because they will expect to beat them and die.

At home, I like to let a 1st or 2nd level part come across an ancient red dragon or the like. They know they are like Bilbo facing Smaug and are very careful to not wake it up, and usually are too scared to even risk taking anything from its hoard! ;-)

I like to throw in similar things throughout the campaign to keep them on their toes.

Thanks Rednal, I agree. This adventure is an investigation of the disappearance of several merchant ships and does lend itself to the node approach better than some adventures might.

PK, I just realized my "Acts" are actually the map sandboxes you des ribed above.

Act 1 is the entire city of Ferryport with about 50 named and described locations in our Guide to Ferryport publication. And the new updated map has over 700 numbered locations for the GM to expand.

Act 2 occurs on a merchant ship going down river, so by its nature pretty linear, but with the freedom to stop anywhere along the way.

Act 3 is the entire multi-island port area of the Sunken City of Taulon

Another act is a huge swamp full of islands and encounters and a table for random swamp monsters

And the final act is a huge keep with multiple ships, castle walls towers and a multi-level keep tower with subterranean tunnels.

So the PCs are free to wander each of these large areas and find clues that should lead them to the next act or sandbox.

What I call Scenes are really encounters or events that may or may not occur in each Act.

PK the Dragon, good point. How would you suggest naming the nodes or events? If I name them Node 1, Node 2, Node 3 ... or even Node A, Node B, Node C ... doesnt doesn't that make them look sequential as well? Not being flippant, really asking.

Mike, that is an interesting idea I would like to explore. I think it is more like what I do when first laying out an adventure for my home campaigns. But when I try to expand that into a module for a different GM to play, I have to fill in a great deal of information that is just in my head about the campaign setting, NPC backgrounds and motivations, etc. And then there is the responsibility of having to either take a minimalist approach of just using pathfinder monsters and listing their bare minimal stats, forcing the GM to page through multiple volumes of Bestiaries or keep a computer handy throughout play to reference the pfsrd online OR typing up all the monster stats for them to have right there in the module. I also struggle with the danger of assuming only very skilled GMs will be running the adventure. A bare skeleton would be fine for most highly experienced GMs, but novice GMs could find it very daunting to run. Opinions anyone?

Andre and Aaron, thanks for providing references to existing products.

Hi Planpanther. If I understand your question, the answer is yes. It is a campaign length adventure with somewhere between 100 and 150 pages of text, descriptions, new monsters and spells, detailed maps, three cities to explore, etc. It will look very similar to a Paizo adventure path module in layout, including great artwork. It is NOT just a tree of nodes and event description. I have even included pre-written dialog for many of the NPCs when they are telling the PCs stories, rumors, etc. There are a few hints of what it will look like on the kickstarter campaign pages. Go to www.kickstarter.com and search for FRPG and select The Crossing to see more, or visit our store at SagaBorn.com to see previous adventures.

Thanks tonyz. Yes that has been my experience. Have you played published adventures that were node based? Are there any by Paizo?

Many reviews and critiques of published adventures over the past few years, have complained about the adventures being too linear. In response to this, we at SagaBorn.com decided to make our latest adventure module, “The Crossing”, a “node-based” adventure. This gives the heroes quite a bit of freedom to explore in any of a number of directions, especially early in the adventure. Each place they go has clues, rumors, and information that can be gathered, which may point them to one of several other places to investigate. Some clues overlap and some don't, and not all of the locations have to be investigated to succeed. Because of this “node-based” approach, which allows the players more freedom to follow their own path, as opposed to a linear adventure, we have chosen to break tradition and lay out the adventure in “Acts” and “Scenes” rather than in “Parts” as most of the Paizo adventure path modules have. Looking at the first module in the Shattered Star adventure path, it has only 3 “parts”, and the subsections within those parts are just divided by headings for the most part. In Part 1, there is a section where the players can investigate any of four different leads which are titled “Lead 1”, “Lead 2”, etc. With that one exception, the remainder is fairly linear, with little room to approach things in a different order.
In contrast, in “The Crossing”, part 3 of our “Return of the Fey” adventure path, which just met our funding goal yesterday on www.kickstarter.com, I have 8 Acts, and each act has 4 to 9 Scenes. Each Act begins with Scene 1, which presents the players with certain events, clues, or rumors, which will hopefully pique their interest in exploring one of several options. Each option corresponds to a different Scene. As the players visit each Scene, they will uncover clues or information that could lead them to explore a different Scene. No matter what order the players approach the scenes in, they will eventually learn enough to lead them to the next major node or “Act”, but their unique approach will make the story their own.
Instead of learning a rumor that might lead them to the unnumbered subsection of Part 1 of the module titled “Approaching with the Merchant Guild”, we state in the text with the rumor, “This may lead the PCs to seek an audience with the merchant guild (see Act I, Scene 8 - Approaching the Merchant Guild). As a GM I always hate flipping back and force though the book looking for an obscure section heading. With everything numbered, it seems really easy to just flip to it and keep the adventure going.
So with our next module funded, but while we are still in the pre-print phase, I wanted to ask GMs on the forum what their thoughts are on node based adventures and what you thought are on us using the “Acts” and “Scenes” terminology. Do you have any big heartburn with it? Would it keep you from purchasing a module or, as we believe to be the case, because we think it enhances the readability, encourage you to purchase it? Have you ever seen anything like this before and if so, did you like it?
Many role-playing groups today like to play the same adventure more than once, and with The Crossing, they have the opportunity to replay the adventure and explore down different paths that they didn’t even go down the first time, or explore them in a different order. In addition, several random event and random encounter tables within the adventure ensure that even if a group played down the same path, they will encounter different NPSs, monsters, and events.
I am interested in hearing thought from GMs on this approach. Thanks!

In times of war, those who actually see a good deal of battle and survive, either gained a good deal of experience, or just had really really good luck. So if there has been a recent war, and the common man was conscripted to fight, it is quite possible a large percentage of the surviving males in the land between say 15 and 40 years of age, all gained 1 to 4 levels, if the war lasted a while. But these fighters are generally not interested in adventuring, and return home to go back to their common professions, be that farmer, baker, black smith, city guard, rich man's son, shop keeper, bar tender, etc. And in a highly magic world, where there may have been numerous clerics to support the war effort, it is quite possible that young men in the service of their gods would have been conscripted to help make healing potions, tend the wounded, cast blessings and other spells, and even learn offensive spells. Likewise, young adepts may have been sought out and conscripted to serve as apprentices to higher level wizards or sorcerers. Again, those clerical and mage apprentices who survived long enough to see the end of the war might have earned enough experience to be 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd level spell casters. The clerical ones might return to their home towns to serve their local temple, while the mages might return to their previous professions, or be satisfied with starting their own magic shop ... just the ability to cast detect magic and identify would be powerful boons to a magical shop owner in determining how valuable any so called magic items that adventurers bought into the shop might be. So there need not be a huge all consuming desire on a person's part to be an adventurer in order to have a few levels in a PC class as opposed to the strictly NPC classes from the core rule book. How many young men and women today go off to college to study something and change their minds, or get a degree or two in something and discover they just don't really enjoy it like they thought they would and go off and do something else? The same could be said for some NPCs who go to study magic at a local wizard's tower. Maybe they only got so far and just couldn't keep at it. Maybe they could never quite master the fireball, or maybe they did, but set it off in the magical library and got expelled! They would be 5th to 6th level to master fireball. So where do they go now if they aren't brave enough to go adventuring out in the wilds?
I have been running campaigns for over thirty years now, and my players know to never assume everyone around them in my towns are 1st level or lower, even if they look like commoners.
Many retired NPC adventurers in my worlds own bars, inns, taverns, stables, smithies, magic shops, and the like, and that goes for PCs as well. Some of my highest level players retired their characters and invested their fortunes in helping others. A high level priestess built a new temple in a major city and took on lower level priests and trains them and sends them out to spread the word of her god. A high level paladin reclaimed a ruined castle and hired workers to refurbish it, and started his own fighter's guild, with a training center for would-be fighters and a training center for horses and horsemanship. A high level sorceress started her own mage town in the heart of a major city and have dozens of high level teachers and scores of lower level acolytes learning magic, and hires PC parties to search for rare magical ingredients or lost magical tombs, while she researches new spells and creates potions and magic items.
The answer to the question of why these people aren't out fighting the fights for the city, country, etc. is that they already have, and they are enjoying the fruits of their labor and retirement.