SuzuPazuzu's page

Since it's been asked for a few times, I'll clarify the language roots and inspiration of the names.

Oh, excellent. This lines up perfectly with what I'd expected, and clears up the confusion I had over the Sanmi family. Admittedly, the Sanmi family was especially confusing because a surname-last order for Yuli in the same sentence where a surname-first order was used for Lelong.

Much appreciated clarification though, this helps a lot.

I've been ruminating on the naming conventions in this AP. Drawing from real-life languages and societies leads to the vast majority of names having a fairly obvious origin.

For the most part, I think you've come up with a fairly correct list. It's a little frustrating reading the AP, because the name order is inconsistent in several cases. The majority of names in the AP that are definitely, or very likely, inspired by surname-first names are surname-first (Chinese, Japanese, Korean and such,) while the majority of names definitely, or very likely, inspired by surname-last names are surname-last (Tagalog, English, Hindi.)

However, there are exceptions that throw a wrench into things. Kazuma Oono (as he is presented in the book) should expectedly be surname-first, but Oono is rarely a given name (and when it is, it is exclusively a feminine given name) whilst Kazuma, while still a possible surname, is a common masculine given name. But the book is otherise pretty much on top of this for Japanese-inspired names. It's strange. I think it's safe to declare that one as Oono Kazuma (surname-first.)

The other exception is Yuli and Nadoya Sanmi. I assume you've interpreted these as Japanese names but, while Sanmi is a rare—but extant—japanese surname, both Yuli and Nadoya are not Japanese given names. If we assume the surname-last order wasn't a mistake here, I'm leaning on these two being Indonesian-inspired; both Yuli and Nadya are feminine given names within Indonesia. However, trying to find evidence for Sanmi led nowhere. Imperfect solution.

Aside from these two exceptions, I'm inclined to believe you've interpreted the rest correctly. They otherwise follow expected name orders (with Chinese and Korean names tending to have, more often than not, a monosyllabic surname and a mono-or-disyllabic given name.) It'd be nice to have a little more insight on the specific inspiration for each of these names, but hey, it *mostly* lines up without issue.

>Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component.

>You can't use blood components to replace any required part of a spell's cost.

As I understand it, the touch requirement as per the rules on somatic components is *not* a cost (cost having its own specific designation in the spell description,) so this excerpt of the feat would not apply in this interaction.

After all, punching someone (unarmed Strike with a fist) doesn't provoke reactions either even though it does require touching them.

One could argue that the difference is that making a Strike is an offensive action that must be defended against, but reaching out to touch somebody is more reactable. But ultimately I agree with you, and Sibelius Eos Owm's opinion that you could reflavour the lack of mechanical touching, as it's better for player enjoyment and not unbalanced.

RAW it just ends up being an interesting interaction in the rules to me that I can't 100% be satisfied with either way.

The 12th-level Sorcerer feat Blood Component Substitution allows you to replace all somatic components with blood components, and removes the manipulate trait entirely from such spells (APG pg. 140.)

The core rulebook states, with regards to somatic components, "spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component" (CRB pg. 303.)

How do these interact? If you remove the somatic components from a spell which requires you to touch the target, would you fail to cast the spell, or would it cast without requiring physical touch?

Additionally, and as a secondary question, the wording of Blood Component Substitution states "you can replace all verbal, material, or somatic spellcasting components with a blood component." The use of 'or' in this sentence reads literally to me as 'you may replace all components of a certain type' rather than 'you may replace any and all components of any of these types.' However, I would intuit that the intent is the latter.

Thanks for the input in advance.