Brinetooth

calnivo's page

150 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

keftiu wrote:
Why would Lamashtu writing the prophecies correspond with her being the one to actually die?

Note that I do believe that there are multifarious "lamashtan" clues, but I did not explicitly state that it must be her who will die, yet. I'm currently considering, indeed. Weighing this and that, thinking aloud.


Jan Caltrop wrote:
...okay yeah that is indeed a good argument. Can't decide what that would MEAN though.

Maybe it's a teasers that her ultimate brood is ready. And (Fate's Chain Theory) that actions to prevent it - e.g. by slaying her - will only hasten its birth. While simultaneously "those who lie down in front of the hooves [...] deserve to be trampled"?

Believing to trace something (plus biological biases) can be a terrible thing... After warming up above finding I now start reading hidden meanings into single words like "deliver" ...


Addition: The "Divine Name Count", a.k.a. "Lamashtu Zero" ;-), could even get Yvali's "mulling over [...] the naming of the Godsrain" and her "Defenestration remark" -- i.e. "asked me to limit the word to once per page at most" -- some unexpected turn and hidden subtext.

Admittedly, this may be far-fetched. But aren't prophecies usually? ;-)


The Raven Black wrote:
Lamashtu is the mother of monsters and several have been mentioned in the prophecies. So maybe she will not be the one dying, nor the one killing, but maybe a strong participant in the War.

I hope that I'm not obtrusive if I second your remark concerning Lamashtu. There is Monsters and much more, IMHO ... (Compare my recent message in LO-Subforum: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs44znp?Deciphering-the-Godsrain-Prophecies#14)


While my original theory (Deeplink) is not refuted yet, I'd like to highlight something different, now. (For the records, I'm pretty sure others community members have mentioned it much earlier.)

If I connect the (explicitly stated) Lamashtu info from G&M and PC1 - especially Areas of Concern and Edicts - to the "Godsrain Prophecies", I find a lot of connections.

"reveal the corruption and flaws in all things"
"bring power to outcasts and the downtrodden",
or letting the gods commit corrupted acts that ruin lots of the world - that could well qualify, IMHO.

Then multiple occurrences of divine aberrance, weird monsters lurking and/or killing gods, plus framing comments about divine fear and nightmares (IIRC) - that's literally Lamashtu's Areas of Concern.

(Update and Cross-Check: I see this degree of congruence for none of the other core 20. Norgorber might come out as second, but I'd miss some more "greed, murder, poison", here.)

If one follows this idea, one might even say that the whole "Godsrain Prophecies" is deeply saturated with Lamashtu motives. Is this intended to "indoctrinate others in Lamashtu’s teachings"?

Plus: The name of Lamashtu - in contrast to other core 20 - never appears. This all feels suspicious.

Do you see what I mean? Or am I just caught by confirmation bias and/or another monstrous red herring?

If you find this to be relevant evidence - what do we make of it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

(edit: Smooshing two posts together to avoid the double-posting)

So now that the list has been trimmed a bit, let's go back down it from a doylist perspective. What makes the best story? The daity who dies almsot certainly isn't goign to break Golarion's everything, because we still need a gameworld ot play in after this is over. Their death is going ot create soem stories and close down others, and I'm betting that whoever we hit is more of the former than the latter. So... [...]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Besides, there are many which I agree with.

(BTW: Thanks to all of you friendly speculators and guessers. Having fun to read and learning lots of nerd-knowledge.)

BTW: Something that makes interpreting the "Godsrein Prophecies" even harder is Yivali's latest "dismiss (or at least deemphasize)". So effectively, by altering the way to read the stories from week to week, the hype-engine turned higher - even when the mathematical options narrowed down a little bit.

I am still wondering whether Rovagug was just too useful alive as the big, world-devastating nuclear threat that looms over (or inside) creation. Changing this could be truly gigantic and change the course of an arbitrarily big amount of cosmic stories. Would that be fitting for these products - or be a bit too big?

On the other hand, it might somehow be "mitigated" and fine-tuned. For instance by splitting Rovagug into multiple entities, similar to existing spawn. These might even have divine potential on their own and be more practical than the extremely overpowered worldbreaker as a whole. Plus, the dark tapestry and their powers, which I suspect to be the main source of evil anyway, might add all sorts of new world ending threats into the future mix.

Points that still give me pause for thought are investigating further, suspected clues in the story and some meta-gaming considerations (like the old alignment grid, player options etc.). Actually the latter might make a killed Rovagug more likely. Though regarding story elements, perceived clues, etc. I still tend to a Gorum- or Goszreh-Rain.

(Then again, Yvalis "name-dropping cue" could be a big, fat Red Herring. ;-) Or totally be revised by new Yrali-findings that "Rova-Gug" had new meanings in some pre Azlant-language. Stuff like "Divine Rein - Shaking World" or the like ;-))

(NOTE: To not mislead anyone willingly myself: That last (language) bit is utterly made up by me and not based on any actual clue I read in the "Godsrain Prophcies.")


calnivo wrote:

My completely personal thesis as of now.

(Maybe not overly smart to do it one day before the next "prophecy". But I am ready to be proven wrong and have the prophecy and anyone correct my daring guess. For today I try to make it rather short [Update: I failed]. If there is interest (and more time) I could try to explain more details of why I came to my conclusions.)

[...]
...

I forgot to add: A Gorum-Rain could also be a "fitting starter" for a War of Immortals... (Maybe even a better one than a dose of Father Skinsaw.) In my initial guess I just thought that Gorum was already nihilistic and dark enough for the "Dark Tapestry" to live on. But we'll see...

(Unfortunately I still can't say that my mercurial Lady (see some further posts above) is safe. But I'll mourn her in the fullness of time.)


My completely personal thesis as of now.

(Maybe not overly smart to do it one day before the next "prophecy". But I am ready to be proven wrong and have the prophecy and anyone correct my daring guess. For today I try to make it rather short [Update: I failed]. If there is interest (and more time) I could try to explain more details of why I came to my conclusions.)

Big bad opposite side of the war:
The Outer Gods and the Old Ones.

One common theme of the "Godsrain Prophecies" is their uncomfortable and disturbing loss of meaning, purpose, or any higher truth. Instead, what we (or the inner gods) held dear - whatever it is (whether Asmodeus Order, Cayden's Legend of the Drunken Brave, Urgathoa's hunger, ...) becomes bland, corrupted, disfigured, unmade - sometimes even their death not overly important.

Godsrain Author:
Grandmother Spider (GMS) who composed the "Prophecies" both as an elaborate combination of
- some sort of humiliation (for usual habit, retaliation of their deeds), but not with overly destructive intentions,
- an uncertain, hidden warning about the real enemy and that something disruptive is about to happen. A tightrope walk to make the (inner) gods think while preventing rash measures. The latter could make things even worse. In this connection the stories also might serve as a sort of
- mild deterrence not to go against her (GMS) or what she holds dear. Which brings us to ...

The Killer(s):
Immortal entities corrupted by the Outer Gods. As I expect War of Immortals and related stories to affect multiple countries and cultures, there will probably be a plethora of small and big antagonists and complications, not one single opponent.

Yet, If I had to put my money on someone specific and a particular complication here, I'd say: A corrupted Achaekek.

With GMS allowing a chance to prevent greater harm, wanting her brother to be saved, but not be killed.

Further Survivors:
Iomedae and other Shyka ;-)

The (first?) Divine Victim:
I guess everyone whose death destabilizes the world, puts it closer to apocalypse, despair, insanity. However, since deaths of gods apparently can have unpredictable, sometimes counter-intuitive consequences -- because it can either diminish a godly aspect but also "release" an aspect previously "confined"/stabilized by the divinity -- this is tricky.

Today my first guess would be: The first strike goes against Gozreh - to cause global disruption and diminish divine control of nature.

If I had to make a counter-intuitive bet, it would be Norgorber, particularly Father Skinsaw. Resulting in loss of divine control over "Murder". (Could even allow that other aspects somehow keep existing.)
Note that Father Skinsaw is also Rival/Enemy of Achaekek.

PS:
The suspense is killing me, too. Anyway, if my thesis proved sufficiently "right" at the end, I hope that everyone will still have had all the fun this war promised.

They say that prophecy was a sword without hilt. ;-) How could I impartially convey it, without getting bloody hands?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

3.) Apart from the departing core deity and newly entering Arazni, is leaving the core 20 while staying alive an option?

(Be warned: A single "yes" could bring the speculations already distributed over 7+ weeks and 1000+ messages to an even more extreme level. I'm not sure if it was good if a certain someone was dancing even more... ;-) Maybe also a frightening perspective...)


Questions to the blogging insiders:

1.)
I was wondering whether the Godsrain Prophecies are mainly written for our entertainment and as (IMHO: quite artistic) teasers for the upcoming revelation and products - but in a concealing way, so that we don't guess the death too early (or at all before confirmation at the april event)?

Or are they meant also to include further hidden hints, maybe a pattern that would allow to somehow correctly conclude the death in a logical manner? (Besides just the fact that they marked some divinities safe, directly, already.)

2.)
Another question, if you are allowed to reveal that: Are the Godsrain Prophecies blog-only material or will they (in whole or part) also be included in some upcoming material?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In this context I'd like to honor Igor Grechanyi's spectacular illustration -- s. https://cdn.paizo.com/image/content/Blog/10220_rovagug.jpg -- that obviously deals with some phase of the fight against Rovagug. (Detail: I remember them saying, that the "rocks" on the ground were actually mountains...)

It might give some hint, how closely our Savored Sting flirted with the Worldbreaker. Or it might not.

I can't say how accurately, how "Canon", this is meant to be. Or whether there is an in-Universe-equivalent to Igors illustration. And - if you ask me - it doesn't have to be. Artistic freedom is a wonderful thing. On Earth and Golarion as well.

Anyway, no matter how toe-to-toe or cheek by jowl -- in my world, I am convinced that the Rough Beast was quite affected by the Unquenchable Fire when Creation came to its cataclysmic conclusion.

To round this up, I might add: Above illustration gives me some fiery vibe for what waits just beyond the horizon, too. Allow me to add: May the Fire still burn after the next War of Immortals!

(PS: Though I still see eerie indicators that keep me dread My Lady's demise. May I be wrong. At least her ally for ages seems safe, for now. Though some terrible madness seems to stay behind the stars, still. Sipping slowly. Dripping in through dreams I can't shake off. War awaits. And I don't know what to do. Besides clinging to pictures of past glory. And gore.)


Red Metal wrote:
Base cleanse affliction reduces the stage of an affliction, but cannot reduce it below 1 (so cannot remove it entirely), and does not attempt to counteract afflictions. Higher rank cleanse afflictions attempt to counteract afflictions in addition to reducing the stage.

Ah, I now understand my mistake.

When I read the sentence...

Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column, Cleanse Affliction description wrote:
Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract with each casting.

... my brain seemed to have put the emphasis on the final phrase "with each casting". I assumed the "with each casting" was the one and decisive difference to the function of the base version described before. (Complementary to this overemphasized "with each casting", the "counteract" part went in the background, mentally.)

This is why I had thought that all versions of the spells worked by counteracting and got confused about the seemingly incompatible heightening descriptions. Thx, Red Metal for helping me out.

May I suggest a slightly changed wording that will probably prevent errors like mine: (italics for recommended clarification)

"Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract and do so with each casting.


Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column - Confusing description of Cleanse Affliction

I don't understand the exact effect of Cleanse Affliction, particularly when reading it's heightened versions:

First, Cleanse Affliction 2 addresses curse, disease, or poison.

Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column wrote:

[b}Cleanse Affliction Spell 2[/b]

[...] Choose an affliction [...] such as a curse, disease, or poison

(italics mine)

Then, Cleanse Affliction 3 addresses "disease or poison", only.

Lastly, Cleanse Affliction 4 addresses "curse, disease, or poison" again.

I believe it is intended, that the higher the Cleanse Affliction rank, the more types of afflictions it can counteract. Hence, from context I assume that Cleanse Affliction 2 is meant to address only poisons, isn't it? I can't say for sure. The way the main description text is worded in conjunction with the heightened 3rd text - and how my brain processes spell descriptions - don't seem quite compatible.


YuriP wrote:

Good point, lets list the ancestries and versatile heritages without lore feats:

[...]

Addition to YuriP's (afaik correct) deliberations: For Ganzis a feat exists that is mechanically equivalent to the typical "[Ancestry] Lore" feats whilst at the same time not following their typical "convention": Creative Prodigy.

Mechanically equivalent - because it's a lvl 1 ancestry feat that gives two (non-lore) skill trainings plus a lore skill.
(Side-Note: The latter not being implemented by a free "Additional Lore" skill feat is a remaster compatibility errata candidate for me. Compare https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43f59&page=7?Official-Lost-Omens-clarifica tion-errata-and#346)

Not following typical convention - because the lore skill included is Art Lore not a Ganzi Lore, and the feat name differs from the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore" naming convention likewise.


Luis Loza wrote:
Unsurprisingly, we had similar feedback internally. Don't worry! The core deities will have their stat blocks in Divine Mysteries so you won't have to flip back to Player Core.

Thanks Luis for the quick reply. And I can only concur with cori: That's wonderful news.

Very much looking forward to Divine Mysteries.

(Albeit with a little fear that the path of some clerics, especially my own ;-), might be shattered by the impending death of one or more deities. But that is a fear for another thread. :-)

There is no perfection without change.)


Then I have not expressed myself clearly enough, I'm sorry. My request centers around the consolidated statistics blocks. That is, I kindly request that the new book contains the (Quote:) "mechanical information required to play a champion, cleric, or worshipper of one of the 20 core deities".

To be more explicit: This should somehow include (repeat) the statistics from PC1:

  • * Areas of Concern
  • * Edicts
  • * Anathema
  • * Divine Attribute
  • * Cleric Spells
  • * Divine Font
  • * Divine Sanctification
  • * Divine Skill
  • * Domains
  • * Favored Weapon

Additionally, all further "information useful for understanding those gods" remain highly welcome. For instance the following fields from G&M:

  • * Realm
  • * Allies
  • * Enemies
  • * Relationships
  • * Temples
  • * Worshippers
  • * Sacred Animal
  • * Sacred Colors


I'd like give feedback regarding "good old" Gods&Magic that will also be relevant for anounced Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries:

In short:
Would it be possible to design the future sections on all deities - particularly those of the core deities - in such a way, so that all relevant stat block info can be retrieved there without having to consult Player Core 1 (formerly CRB) in parallel?

In bit more detail:
I frequently look up details about deities in Gods&Magic. I really love that some (in this case: the core) deities got extended statistics, like:
Realm, Allies, Enemies, ..., to Sacred Animal/Colors etc. Very much contributes to more dense lore and atmosphere.

However, I regularly need to know the other, basic statistics and mechanical details like Edicts/Anathema, Cleric Spells, Font, ... Domains, Favored Weapon as well. For the "Other Deities" from Gods&Magic and newer deity-containing-LO-books these basic statistics and mechanical details are in the respective book. But for the "Core Deities" of all they are not.

Consequently, for the "20 deities who are most influential in the Inner Sea region" - which also tend to be the ones I refer most often - the way of retrieving all their relevant information is the most inconvenient one. Effectively, I have to open Gods&Magic and PC1 or Gods&Magic plus a web resource in parallel and consolidate the info on my own.

I can guess why it was originally styled that way in Gods&Magic: Aiming for modularization/better maintainability by implementing the concept of Single Source of Truth (SSOT).

SSOT could work fine when having tool support (like a document management system or an integrated development environment) and clickable-hyperlinks. It doesn't quite work for me for lore-centered books, where my brain usually likes to find all relevant information easily accessible, ideally at first glance in a self-contained way. (Not always possible, but definitely possible for the deities sections.)

If SSOT was and still is a requirement, I could think of ways to implement it while still providing all info for a Deity in Divine Mysteries. An example method would be to explicitly state that for certain stats (like Edicts/Anathema, Cleric Spells, ...) PC1 is the authoritative source and that they are only copied&pasted to Divine Mysteries for convenience. This could be emphasized by graphical elements like different background color and/or via side-bars.

However implemented, having all info in one place would be a significant usability improvement to me. Thank you for your time to read and hopefully consider this.


Lost Omens: Character Guide and Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility

I wasn't entirely sure what was the best place to put Lost Omens-Books elements that probably need remaster compatibility errata, too.

For example, I've stumbled over non-core "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats.

For now, I've put them in the Lost Omens-Errata-thread (see https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43f59&page=7?Official-Lost-Omens-clarifica tion-errata-and#345)

If remaster compatibility errata candidates should rather be put in the thread at hand, just give me a note and I will do for any future findings.


Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility

calnivo wrote:

Lost Omens: Character Guide - Remaster Compatibility

All "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster (cp. Dwarven Lore from Player Core 1 (PC1), pg. 43).

[...]

Analog to Character Guide (see my post above)

Examples Feats:
- Android Lore (AG, pg. 71)
- Axiomatic Lore (AG, pg. 76)
- Fetchling Lore (AG, pg. 85)
- Creative Prodigy (AG, pg. 96; admittedly different name but same mechanics)
- Elemental Lore (AG, pg, 99)
- Kitsune Lore (AG, pg. 124)
- Strix Lore (AG, pg. 136)

Somewhat similar but mechanically different is Azarketis' Ancestral Insight (AG, pg. 13). This might require additional consideration if and how a remaster compatibility update would be proper.

I searched for "Lore"-Feats, but again, these lists do not claim to be exhaustive. Particularly if feats don't follow the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore-Naming Convention" (as Creative Prodigy did) I might have missed them.


Lost Omens: Character Guide - Remaster Compatibility

All "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster (cp. Dwarven Lore from Player Core 1 (PC1), pg. 43).

Examples for these from Character Guide, not necessarily an exhaustive list, were
- Hobgoblin Lore (CG, pg. 50)
- Leshy Lore (CG, pg. 54; already explicitly superseded by version of PC1)
- Lizardfolk Lore (CG, pg. 58)


Right, making them all Manipulate caused severe power changes. Most probably undesired ones.

You mentioned an example; I found others in the meantime. Often spells that are particularly interesting to be cast in the front line / closely engaged. Some reaction spells come into my mind like Blood Vendetta.
Imagining some opponent striking you (having prepared Blood Vendetta) and you - by reacting with a hypothetical Manipulate-laden Blood Vendetta - triggering more reactive strikes or the like on top of the original strike… That would be particularly awkward.

(Admittedly, skimming through Focus Spells, there was precedence for such awkwardness, e.g. Retributive Pain or Sudden Shift being Manipulate Spells. I start to realize this now, as Manipulate and provoking reactions has become so transparent. But this is probably out of scope of the thread at hand, so let's get back.)

Consequently, making all spells Manipulate to align the paragraph about gestures with the trait, again, wouldn't work. Leaving us with the already mentioned "small (non-manipulate) gesture"-compromise. Only other way I could see would be to alter or soften the blanket require Gesture/Incantation wording. Which required either house-ruling, errata (if all gestures wasn't intended), or "just" a different understanding that I have. Don't know.


Something I find worth emphasizing: Actions, even single actions, take time in the game world and the concept of (re-)actions occurring in the middle of other actions exists - particularly in the context of triggered free actions and reactions.

Preface:
Often I find times - apart from the usual action economy and whether something takes 1, 2, 3 or more actions - not important regarding terms of rules mechanics. That's because in many cases there is simply no need for tracking time of actions while they happen or something like partial fulfilment. Instead, one can usually treat actions as some elementary events that are chosen, have their effect and are finished, without considering whether something was happening in midst of it. Effectively as if they were digital things and had some sort of binary effect (happened / not happened.)

However, this case of simultaneous actions and how to deal with a situation when a reaction could decisively change the triggering actions effect is probably the very exception. Probably the actual challenge. (Otherwise, I misunderstood what was currently being discussed.)

This is were I found the sidebar and quote handy, that was already mentioned at the start of this thread; excerpt copied for convenience:

Player Core 1, pg. 415, sidebar In-depth Action Rules wrote:

Simultaneous Actions

[...]
Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.

I take above case of a lever someone is about to pull as example. That means pulling the lever is trigger for reactions and we define that the order to deal with all effects would make an important difference for the overall outcome. Let's indeed say, the lever person is clearly about to be taken down by a (non-critical) reactive strike. Is lever pulled or not pulled when they go down?

My way of handling this: Unless an explicit way to handle the details is already given (like in case of Stand up from prone vs Stand Still reaction), I'd probably invent something on the fly.

For this, I'd tend to move away from conceiving actions as digital but rather make them analog events. This would better reflect the simultaneity and something being disturbed while it is happening. If somehow acceptable for plot, that the lever can be pulled halfway, I'd go with this. In my POV that gave the original effort and trigger some credit (particularly when there was no explicit Disrupt rule invoked), while still honoring the reactive striker hitting in-midst of the action. It also minimizes weird timing effects of retroactively having to declare the trigger be unpulled or the like.

This has caveats, though. IMHO, it works the better, the more there is actually some relevant "analog" effect. For instance:
- The lever stuck halfway would be a pretty visible effect. That's even more true, if - whatever the lever did - also could have some sort of partial effect. For instance, a secret door sliding open halfways.
- Or a latch of a lock partially being moved, but just sticking at the very edge of the frame. In consequence, it was now easier to open the thing but not quite as easy as having the action completed regularly. (Maybe instead of declaring something open having its DC for another attempt be significantly reduced. Or making the action cost to get the job finally done in s.o. else's attempt reduced by one step, minimally a free action.)
- Another good case would be being taken down while being in the midst of a stride. That could easily result in the strider making only part of the distance before taken down.

It works less, the more inherently digital something is. If the trigger was about some strange magical effect or some technical stuff like radioactive emission of an elementary particle - note: approaching Schroedinger's Cat territory here - and just can't be meaningfully conceived as happening in partial, my "analog" method will probably fail.

Final emergency solutions:
- GM fiat. Either by
_ - deciding arbitrarily or
_ - rolling a dice.
- To be taken with a grain of salt: Move the game situation into a new quantum state made of happened and not happened effects simultaneously. Until player interference makes everything collapse. ;-)

TL;DR
Trying to resolve by inventing partial effects of triggering actions. Going for GM fiat otherwise.


Agreed, the question of having the Manipulate trait seems to be the mechanically more important, by far. Plus - after looking at spells again - the vast majority I looked up so far have the trait.

Still I'm wondering if gestures should actually be introduced mandatorily for spells that only had Verbal but no Somatic components in CRB, e.g. most classical bard composition cantrips (inspire courage, inspire defense, now anthems) or several reaction spells, as well.

I note that it could be a compromise to treat Non-manipulate spells as having somewhat "smaller" gestures, now (by RAI?).

Additional remarks:
- As I found myself conflating such a (non-manipulate) characteristic of "small gestures" with the colloquial term "subtle", I might reiterate (mainly towards myself): Not same! In the remaster, there are Spells that both have the Manipulate trait - requiring definitely gestures - and the new Subtle trait simultaneously. It's distinct concepts although both associated with how spells look and feel.
- For anyone not scanning all subforums eagerly: Besides the one already cross-linked, there is another sibling thread dealing with Manipulate trait, Conceal Spell (inducing Subtle), in the context of Reactive Strikes: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wzq?Conceal-Spell-vs-Reactive-Strike


Ravingdork wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
For instance, there's now new text in the reaction rules clarifying what happens if multiple actions would happen at once.
Ooh! Where's that at?

I guess it's PC1, pg. 415, right sidebar: Simultaneous Actions.


Southern Claw wrote:

So.

I've started a Monk. She's a Sacred Nagaji focused on strength.

I took Gorilla stance with her, because it has the grapple trait. My idea is that she uses Flurry of Blows to hit her opponent, then grapples them [...]

Any other advice for a grappling monk that anyone can offer me?

Advice 1)

There is also monk class feat, Flurry of Maneuvers (s. CRB, pg. 160; https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=444), that allows to mix strikes (which can be special unarmed strikes, such as the ones from stances, as long as they are generally compatible with flurry of blows ability) with athletics attacks (which can be your grapples).

Additional note: Several actions besides strikes, especially the athletics-based offensive combat maneuvers and Escape as well are called attacks. "Attack" is the broader term and among other things will usually imply that it is subject to Multiple Attack Penalty (MAP). So any combination of Strikes and Grapples by default contributes to MAP.

I want to point out: There is another more narrow term, effectively being a subset included in the term attack: "Attack Role", meaning just (weapon or unarmed) Strike or Spell Attack. (Try to ignore that a dice is often used for many athletics actions as well …)
So, when PF2e mentions "Attack Role" it explicitly wants to distinguish Strikes + Spell Attacks on the one side from Athletics Attacks on the other side.

I note this because it comes up at some times and still causes confusion at some places in the rules, where not completely exact. Unfortunately, flurry of maneuvers is one of this places, which (somewhat colloquially) talks about replacing the "attacks" from Flurry of Blows, although it would be more precise to say that Flurry of Blow's attack rolls (i.e. their subordinate strike actions) can be replaced.

Advice 2)
Particularly with monks and their many applicable actions + your desire for grapple, you might look into another feat, in this case a skill feat: Assurance (s. PC1, pg. 252 / CRB, pg. 258; https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=756). When used with athletics, this forfeits all of your bonuses (incl. attribute and item bonuses), but also the penalties (incl. MAP) and causes your monk to get a fixed result for the athletics maneuver - usually a moderate one - sometimes sufficient to get a success. Just another option. If you are interested , search for assurance athletics; you'll probably find much more info and ideas on that.

Forum Organizational Advice 3) There is a whole subforum dedicated to Advice on PF2e character creation, playing etc. See: https://paizo.com/community/forums/pathfinder/second/advice. Opening/Moving the thread there could be helpful.


Indeed. (Usually) concentrating and manipulating (=gesturing?) on their spell for ca. 4 to 6 seconds - even if done subtly - does IMO pose a very plausible trigger for opponents who know what to look for and are trained to make use of it in an encounter, in other words: our reactive strikers.

Regarding the invisible caster scenario: Note that whoever fights them can by default still attempt to locate them by other senses. If I had to fight the invisible wannabe subtle, my no. 1 attempt was to focus on the sound they make when moving around.

I guess in rules terms, that means: That invisible one will probably keep a hidden condition towards anyone w/o non-vision based precise senses; but unless the invisible take effort to hide and sneak, it won't become better, though. (Pls correct me if I am wrong.)

So, I concur with answers above: Wanting to be subtle in a fight does not entitle one to be unmolested by any entities waiting for the right (attack of) opportunity. ;-)


Another mafia murder example: Gentle landing (see PC1, pg. 333; formerly known as Feather Fall) … Gestures or no gestures? ;-)


As I notice that the alphabetically first spell in PC1 without Manipulate is Air Bubble (s. PC1, pg. 314; cp. legacy link) - there is a mechanical impact, which can decide over life and death: What if one's hands or "gesture-capable appendages" ;-) are tied?

You know, the cliche mafia murder scenario (assuming they completely tied but did not gag us): Do we get an Air Bubble of additional time?


Maybe the strict mechanical aspect is indeed limited. Regarding my imagination, it does however make a difference, if certain spells can be cast without gesturing - which I think of remaining in place relatively still and (by-default) just speaking incantations and manifesting the spell - or if the magical gestures are always there.

Though I might need to spend another look which spells fall into that Non-Manipulate (and non gesture?) range.


Addition: There might also be additional implications if one adds the Subtle trait into the mix.

For instance, see this sibling thread for further details: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wzs?How-would-you-handle-the-Subtle-trait


As you discuss Subtle trait and gestures (btw, thx for opening, SuperBidi!), I'd like to add a reference to a related question about Manipulate and gestures, in general. See sibling thread: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x06?Post-Somatic-Does-Manipulate-decide-over

Update: Added cross-link.


Briefly:
I'm a bit confused: Is the Manipulate trait - having or not having it - the decisive factor whether a spell requires gestures? Or does every spell require them, without exception?

More Details / background of the question + Remaster feedback:

We noticed that spell components got a remaster (in Player Core 1 (PC1)). Apparently it affected several aspects.
1) My favourite: In Legacy (CRB), there are nested layers of components / traits / rules. Most prominent example: "Somatic" components implying "Manipulate" -> triggering Reactions. We had to look up in critical moments, sometimes more than once. This was changed, luckily. The components in their previous form are gone; there is just the traits any more. Removing that layer of complexity will surely be making our game easier. Also the handling and wording of those item component sometimes needed (once called "focus component") was greatly simplified.
(See the legacy section on spell components CRB, pg. 303, Deeplink: AoN).

2) However, in the course of this, a change was introduced, that confuses us. In legacy, despite above-mentioned "nesting"-hassle, there seemed to be a clear designation: If a spell had somatic components, it implied gestures; I think it was a 1:1 relation. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.)
Now - with spell components being folded into traits - does this 1:1 relation still hold?

I'm wondering because there is two aspects in remaster which apparently point towards different directions:

a) We now got the Manipulate trait in the spell descriptions. (Again: Good to see at first glance.) I'll cite for convenience:

Player Core 1, pg. 458 wrote:

manipulate (trait)

You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.

(italics mine)

And, like somatic components in legacy, most spells indeed have that trait. At first glance it much seems as if manipulate simply replaced somatic as the indicator for having gestures.

However, I am not longer sure because …

b) In the section about Casting Spells we found more about the former components, incl. gestures, in the first paragraph:

Player Core 1, pg. 299 wrote:

Casting Spells

The casting of a spell can range from a simple word of magical might that creates a fleeting effect to a complex process taking hours to cast and producing a long-term impact. Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters. If your character has a long- term disability that prevents or complicates them from speaking (as described in GM Core), work with the GM to determine an analogous way they cast their spells, such as tapping in code on their staff or whistling.

(italics mine)

Is this blanket form meant to be understood strictly, which would mean _every_ spell requiring gestures? Or is it rather meant to be understood in a more colloquial way, ala "usually requires"?

Reason for asking is not only the Somatic-to-Manipulate simplification (see above, "a"). There is also something about the context in this paragraph that increases our confusion. I assume it's this mentioning necessities of gestures and incantations - with going into details about what happens when unable to speak incantations (only). (My mind probably liked symmetry and implicitly questioned: Is something missing or something extra, here?) Do you know what I mean?

Please get me right: I generally find that spellcasting rules got more accessible and funny. And the explicitly stated "freedom of flavoring your character's magic" (later in the Casting Spells section) really matches our imagination, too.

I'm just slightly confused about the gestures. Are they ruled by Manipulate (yes/no) - and if not a Manipulate spell it's freestyle - or was there actually an intended change so that every spell (now) require gestures, without exception?


Ryangwy wrote:

[...]

Yeah I like those ideas (though FYI DaS and RK is already a feat)

To put into perspective how hard it is to PaL properly, I GM Outlaws of Alkenstar for myself (look its hard to find players) and one of my characters is an Investigator. The grand total successful PaL is, as of book 2:
[Details from Adventures? Annotation calnivo]

Spoiler tags recommended.


Agree. I guess for reasonable GMs and working collaboration among players that will yield practical results.

I'm annoyed too because I like rules clarity AND plausible, atmospheric worlds. Whereas a rule that - in other group configurations - allowed to present a weird, old-school-video-game-like world of unassailable, quasi-adamant objects is not in accordance with that preferences.

PS:
Omega Metroid, epic post, btw! Special thanks for compiling all this.


Baarogue wrote:
I don't read it as requiring the choice when you take the feat or even per day. Such feats say so and add that it can't be retrained or only changed by retraining. I read it as being chosen whenever you want to use 10 minutes switching a memorized spell, as many times per day you want to spend 10 minutes doing so

Generally:

You have a point referring to feats that explicitly state when a choice gets "locked-in" and needs retraining to be changed. On the other hand, concerning rule interpretation, I fell flat on my face a couple of times before, so I've become really cautious up to paranoid. (Especially when I see some forum users obviously deep in PF2e rules pose differing interpretations. (Tensely looking around.))

Firstly, I really like clarity. In this course, I really want to see that potential, important limitations are presented in a way as unambiguously as possible, instead of relying on exegesis of single words and grammar.

Besides this, I generally like feats that open up a wide variety of options. That holds even more if they have several built-in restrictions already, like 10 minutes additional prep time, or the inherent slot and creature-based power limitation. A class feat that requires you to know that you will need a Summon in 10 Minutes already isn't what many "character optimizers" usually call a power house ... ;-)

Specifically concerning Rites of Convocation (existing in APG already: Deeplink):
I really want to follow the free interpretation, i.e. summon spell chosen at 10 min prep time, NOT locked-in at feat selection time. (For the reasons mentioned above.)

Frankly, after having another look and comparing class feats, especially the mechanically similar Druid's Elemental Summons (PC1, pg. 129, right column, existing in CRB already: Deeplink), I see that interpretation threatened. Have a look. Effectively, the free interpretation would result in a feat that for Arcane or Primal witches did everything of Elemental Summons - because you could choose Summon Elemental as in the Druid Feat - plus more.

Now I'm not saying that should be forbidden, unwanted or undeserved. It might even be the intention, that they wanted to allow Witches these options and designed a feat that was probably better than the Druid class's counterpart.

To knowledgeably decide if class options really are invalid or "Imba" requires more than me just randomly picking two abilities and pointing out which was better. And I'm not even saying Rites of Convocation, even in its most liberal interpretation, actually would be Imba.

I'm just noting my observation, which is based on past experience: When encountering equal level class feats, A and B, and feat A could do the same as the feat B plus more, it usually got the "too good to be true"-vibe (smell, accusation, however you want to call it) pretty quickly... Sometimes rightfully from my POV - in case I found A really overpowered; in other cases I wondered whether it was actually feat B being underpowered and really needed a buff instead to become (more) attractive.

Anyway, I'm not the authority for other people's games and let's never forget Rule 1. I'm just interested in
- how you think current rules (RAW or RAI) are,
- how you think it should be in this case,
- improving my general understanding,
- improving clarity in rules descriptions and the game.

TL;DR
Calnivo wants rules clarity; would like Baarogue's free interpretation; is afraid Finoan is right; explains why.


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

is that harsk tea house earn income example

pretty sure that picture is not in core rulebook

Picture is indeed neither in (legacy) Core Rulebook nor in (remaster) Player Core 1, but it's in GM Core, pg. 44.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, in general I really like the theme of the intellectual, versatile person with knowledge as a weapon that analyzes fights and anticipates maneuvrers in their head.

In this regard, the Devise a Stratagem (DaS)-mechanics per se looks and feels right to me. For compatibility I also guess that disrupting changes would be out of scope of remaster. Some tweaks however, seemed appropriate to me.

For instance:

Ryangwy wrote:

Investigator just really, really need to be able to pursue a lead in combat, I don't care if it costs 1 action or 3 but it needs to. That automatically makes DaS free a sufficient amount of the time.

Stuff I'd like but aren't necessary are low level feats to increase your number of leads, ways to purge a bad DaS roll (maybe a 1 action Strike with the misfortune trait?) and giving some of the out of combat early feats a small combat rider.

A) This would make a significant positive difference. It would also mitigate the problem described by Ectar:

Ectar wrote:

[...] I'd like to see Pursue a Lead to be more broadly useful in its own right. So many Paizo APs have sections where you just kinda gotta kill everything in a region and acquire the thing. Pursuing a Case on thing would NEVER help us to do better with DaS. The scenarios where you can use DaS as a free action, currently, are far too limiting.

A small example:
Our investigator (and friends) are trying to track down a missing person. So we Pursue a Case for that person. Some digging around later and the party has heard from an NPC that our missing person was seen entering a seedy establishment with a cloaked figure. Excellent! We go to the location and start asking questions. One of the patrons takes exception to our poking around and attacks us. The investigator spends an action every round devising a strategy and all that good investigator stuff. The patron is subdued and we find on their person a missive, dated the day prior, that the patron were to deliver our missing person to another individual the previous night.
Turns out, this patron WAS our shadowy figure. But because we didn't know that they were, we couldn't DaS as a free action, even though they were the subject was the lead we were pursuing. [...]

I can confirm the awkwardness of the "If you're aware that the creature you choose is the subject of a lead"-clause in DaS. What if the investigator just suspected but it wasn't definite enough to claim "aware the creature was [it]" - particularly with the limited possibilities during encounter mode (during or at the verge of combat).

Wasn't acting upon reasonable suspicion one of the funny aspects of being an investigator?

B) Above being said, an additional or complementary solution was indeed to broaden the scope of what can be a lead, so that it can be more than just "typically a single creature, item, or small location (such as a room or corridor)" without requiring explicit GM call.

If desired, this could also allow some scaling mechanics: More experienced investigators could have it easier to pursue more extended leads (or larger collections of leads). Regarding Ectars example such mechanics could result in extending the lead from just "the described cloaked figure" to something like "all humanoids at the location that could fit the witness description".

Some guards would probably be needed to prevent scope creep and exploitation.

(An example for exploitation: Deliberately defining a too broad scope although investigator knows it had nothing to do with the case. Maybe it was worries about this that lead to Pursue a Lead in its today form.)

I admit, scope manipulation won't be a no-brainer. As of now, I still think an improvement can be designed without introducing exploits around every corner. The least I'd expect was a "GM can always veto"-clause to keep scope extension in check. Some concrete references and handrails while still facilitating a relatively free collaboration process (cp. new Recall Knowledge handling) could do the trick for a (hypothetical) scope extension rule.


RoE, pg. 97: Consistency / Remaster Compatibility Candidate - Subtle Trait for "Tremor Signs"?

Now that Spell "Message" (Player Core 1, pg. 343) got the Subtle trait, I suspect that the same could be intended for "Tremor Signs" (Rage of Elements, pg. 97) as well.

At least it seemed inconsistent to me, if you sent acoustical messages over 120 up to 500 ft discreetly, but a 120 ft, morse-like transmission, which per se appears to be a rather discreet effect, was accompanied with incantations, audio-visual manifestations, ...


keftiu wrote:

I wish I could remember where it is - a PFS scenario, maybe? - but there's a story somewhere about a Calistrian engineering an elaborate public shaming of someone who had slighted her, and thus considered the matter resolved once it had been pulled off. The wound to her ego had been matched by one that taught the person responsible their lesson - now, back to enjoying life, and potentially even enjoying that person's company!

Again: elven goddess. This is a people who routinely live for centuries; holding a grudge for that long is a great way to tear your society apart.

I'd indeed say that generally allowing matters to be settled without unending grudge was an important factor for general elven well-being and decisively contributed to the relative peace and prosperity of Kyonin. Except maybe the Imvrildarai and the ongoing war against Treerazer and its demons. Then again, a demon lord that had turned one's former home into an abyssal nightmare - and continues to do so - is difficult to settle ...

As a devotee and from both a theological and a game-theoretic perspective I'd reiterate: It seems a rather smart deterrence to me, to both
* build a reputation that one will get back on sleights - and substantiate it with divine edicts - giving the strong signal of not allowing oneself to be exploited,
* while leaving it up to one's personal freedoms how this response will be. (Plus some additional individual decision what one considers a sleight in the first place.)


Regarding RK'ing a creature (strange animal(?)) on opponent's side: I'd find that quite plausible.

Regarding Final Sacrifing kidnapped familiars: Depends on two important points:

1) When and how they will return, and what happens, if they are not .. erhm ... "freed". Witch familiar has higher cost of kidnapped familiar, while having mechanically less cost of a familiar dying. Since this thread was significantly affected by the "Are Ongoing Misery Familiar's Imba"-discussion, I presume this is about Witch familiars at this point.

2) Relation to the familiar. In case of a close emotional tie, one might not want to violently explode that being... From an emotional perspective it seems rather cruel to me.

One might of course argue that getting into captivity could yield even greater agony. The latter might well be conceivable if the captors were some fiendish beings about to take that tiny creature into an abyssal realm or the like. On the other hand: I wouldn't personally like such "euthanasia" arguments to become commonplace. Plus, a story revolving around freeing the familiar could be an interesting story, too, IMO.

[More Off-Topic]
Final Sacrifice is still expecting remastering. Must actually get some change because of the "evil to sacrifice non-mindless minion"-aspect. I'm curious to see, how that will be solved. Personally, I wouldn't object, if bursting your own familiar was outruled (unless it was willing to be killed that way, by own decision w/o caster pressure).


Squiggit wrote:
...

Very fundamental RPG-issue indeed. Influence of mental stats and how they should be acted out at the table ones requires discussion. The comparison to more physical attributes is a useful reference point, IMO. (Like analogy of requiring players to bench press during the session to demonstrate their characters' abilities ... ;-))

However, since we usually act via our "player's stats" at the table - and preferences differ to which extent player decisions should define character decisions or vice versa - it might be difficult to portray a solution that really suits everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM Core, pg. 302, left column - Bad reference in Philosopher's Extractor

GM Core, pg. 302, left column wrote:
Activate—Accelerated Synthesis (3 action activity) (manipulate) Frequency once per minute; Effect You use the extractor to produce an alchemical item of your level or lower whose formula you know. The extractor can create 56 levels’ worth of items per day in this way. For example, the extractor could create two true elixirs of life (19th level) and two moderate elixirs of life (9th level), or eight comprehension elixirs (7th level), and so on.

(italics mine.)

I couldn't find any comprehension elixir neither in Player Core 1 nor GM Core.

Note: This reference could be partially healed if comprehension elixir is re-introduced by Player Core 2. However, if customer only have PC1 and GMC, they might not know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do stylistic things count? For instance, images getting captions. (Makes the art more accessible to me; I can discern at first glance, which of the 7 to 10 spells of a double page is actually depicted.)


keftiu wrote:

Calistria believes in punishing a slight 'appropriately,' not seething over it all the time for the rest of your days. She's a fan of making your point and then moving on with your life.

Remember that she's a big reason so much of Elf culture is so mercurial.

[keftiu, Ninja'ed me. :-)]

I'd say thats pretty true in the calistrian way - and the interpretation what is "appropriately" allows for a nice diversity (and division ;-)) of that church.

As an addition concerning "long term revenge". It may exist, if that shall be your way. Yet, even (and perhaps especially!) a revenge whose end is not in sight, asks for more than exclusive pursuit.

For instance, we could think about the temple of Imvrildara and the sect of the Imvrildarai. They have been fighting for centuries to millennia against Treerazer and the demons, which devastated part of the elven homeland on Golarion. I guess that can be considered vengeance the very long run. But even they and their rather extreme dedication to vengeance and fighting - and maybe (pity) somewhat lacking approach to lust (symbolized by the tower of lust still in ruins?) - can only exist over long time if they do something more than just hunt and fight. And if it's just practicing alternative tactics, improving deceit, obtaining records and resources (whether scripture or alchemy) - caring for themselves and their monastry is a necessity if they want to stay able to pay back, ultimately.


Draven Torakhan wrote:

[...]

So then, how does that balance out? Is there a point in seeking revenge where a follower is expected to just let it go?

Interesting philosophical and theological question. My interpretation of the calistrian way of how to tackle that balance would basically be like:

"Don't let even your vengeance lead you away from your own path." (Whatever this may be in your personal context.)
Effectively: You may stick to your vengeance, but why making it all your life?!

There are some key phrases in Gods&Magic or older lore text that, IMO, bolster this interpretation. For instance:
- "[...] avoid becoming so wrapped up in their work that they lose sight of the other aspects of life that make it worth living."
- Or in the description of one aphorism, that "encourages followers to ensure their own needs are met before pursuing vengeance."

But what to do -- and that's the additional complication you interestingly brought up -- when you indeed want a long term vengeance actually be that path? (In the sense of "defining topic of your being".)

My assumption how she could answer it would be something like:
- "Are you sure you want your life to be that boring?!"
- "You want to play the long game, yes? Dedicate your life to some extraordinary special vendetta, have I heard? - Well, play then. But make sure you can play it till the end! Have fun in between. Throw in some distraction. For you and your target. Don't be easily guessable... Be a thrill... And then go for the kill. Or whatever you wanna' do with them ..."
- "If you thrill me with your vengeance, I might even partake. From time to time..." ;-)
- (In beguiling tone of voice:) "Send Arazni a kiss from me!" (With histrionic adoration.) "What a vigor! ... Always so critical of herself ... And that steely determination!" (Slight Shudder.) "Who wouldn't you faint in the face of this?!" (ambiguous smile)

More:
By chance (or maybe you already read), I recently wrote a bit of an homage(?) about Calistria. So if you like more flavor, you might find another amusing place, just round the corner: Just click and follow me....


Finoan wrote:
calnivo wrote:
You bring up an interesting question. Do spontaneous casters that don't use spellbooks (so no Arcane Evolution Sorcerors and no Esoteric Polymath-Bards) have to spent money for learning common spells? (I thought the answer was "No", but that doesn't have to mean anything.)

It is debatable.

Spontaneous casters automatically learn a certain number of spells in their repertoire. Just like Wizard, Witch, and Magus also automatically learn a certain number of spells as they gain levels.

If a spontaneous caster wants to change their spells using downtime Retraining, then that has an undefined cost.

Retraining wrote:
In some cases, you’ll have to pay your instructor.
But I would use the cost of Learn a Spell for that cost.

You're right, there is this retraining cost; I forgot. I also forgot about Magus. Shame on me. (Really like the concept of books&swords magic/fighting-hybrid.)

Finoan wrote:


calnivo wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure I would consider "Can't wantonly harm animals, but can defend yourself from animal attacks" as equivalent to having to spend hundreds of GP on learning spells in order to actually feel like learned prepared casting is on-par with spontaneous casting or classes that know all their spells for free.

See what you mean. Admittedly, as a witch, I am envious of the my Wisdom-caster buddies' free choice; as a cleric I am happy.

Apart from that, anathema forwards and backwards, there has always been more to me, to truly be a devotee of deity or the forces of nature. Including components that pose restrictions. Though restrictions can all-in-all be pretty atmospheric and engaging to have in the game - and ideally fun for the whole group. (That's the best way for an RPG, IMHO.)

Maybe this has been more of a character role-playing issue, all the time. This reverence and (attempting to) live the ideals of your faith. Etc. Yet, to me these classes always felt remarkably different, at least to some extend. Among this a strong principle of give-and-take. It expects the more from one, the more one has been given.

(Example: "You have been allowed to pray for any of these abilities without further studies? - You will take that offer as a burden to fulfil your duty and serve your call.")

Idk, if it's understandable what I write and comes across what i mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

As technology evolves, our role-playing experiences do too. Have you ever explored how AI can revolutionize your Pathfinder games? Here's how I've been using AI to elevate my gaming experience:

1. Character Development: [...]

2. Artistic Endeavors: [...]

3. Game Mechanics and Rules: [...]

** spoiler omitted **

I'm eager to hear about your experiences. How have you integrated AI into your Pathfinder games? Have you observed any improvements in gameplay or storytelling? Please share your methods, successes, and even the challenges you've faced with AI in gaming. I'm excited to read...

1. Not so much yet. Might try in the future

2. Similar for me to. Serves from time to time either to get some "good enough" image versions - although I again and gain found my self triggering "rerolls" for so long time that one could think of it rather as a sort of mini game by itself. Or a secondary hobby - AI art whisperer. (rolling eyes)

3. Tried very few times to get a rule answer via AI. Went back to HI way, rather quickly. And back to guys like you.

Reasons: It seems to be that AI class now gets feat Confabulator for free, at first level. They use it all the time. ;-)

BTW: I find confabulation a more fitting term than hallucination. One might argue that biological brains do that stuff as well. But there is still something there, apparently, that allows us to meaningfully grasp concepts and their relation to ourself and the perspective of others, as well as second-guessing ourself better than the new (albeit pretty impressive) systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. I wish they had stuck with the off-guard/slow-route from the (now errata'd) short description. That additional debuff with daze could have facilitated interesting group combos. All the more, since I remember relatively few-spells causing off-guard to others, by heart.

I particularly like such abilities that incentivize coordination among characters and thus cooperative play in general. Strengthens the narrative of a group of people sticking together against the odds.


Understandable. I might add: From time to time and when the plot doesn't demand otherwise, I like to let chance play a part in the question what an NPC knows. This could be a flat-check or d100 roll, e.g. when I determine that a given chance is X %. Or it can actually be a recall knowledge check according to usual rules player characters use as well. (If I have the skill value up front or want to set it ad-hoc.)


Eoran wrote:
calnivo wrote:
I always thought that Wizards and Witches tend to be the literally poorest of spellcasters because that need to invest immense money into Learn a Spell...

That is somewhat accurate. Though I would also include Magus on that list for the same reasons.

The costs of learning spells is not any different for spontaneous spellcasters such as Sorcerer, Bard, Oracle, or Summoner either. But because they are unable to quickly change which spells they have available to cast, they have much less incentive to learn a great many spells.

The only classes that have notable differences are Druid and Cleric who are given the learning of their tradition's common spells without any cost. That is where the outlier data is.

You bring up an interesting question. Do spontaneous casters that don't use spellbooks (so no Arcane Evolution Sorcerors and no Esoteric Polymath-Bards) have to spent money for learning common spells? (I thought the answer was "No", but that doesn't have to mean anything.)

Regarding Clerics and Druids getting everything for free: Right, they are really lucky in this regard. :-) Worth a lot, pure gold. On the other hand: In contrast to the money-depending-learners, they have their spiritual rules and restrictions (role-play / lore-wise and in terms of game mechanics), must serve their deities or nature, respectively. So I generally think, it's OK.

That being said, I could also live with skipping Witch/Wizard Spell Learning Money costs. (Unless I learn that this was too bad for balance.) Guess the consideration was that full casters needed less money for weapons and defensive equipment. I'm not sure about that, though.

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>