|
I really don't get the confusion here. There's nothing FAQ worthy. There is no rule that a creature must have hands or have automatic natural spellcasting in order to cast spells. None whatsoever. There is a rule, in the Polymorph subschool rules, that states that a Polymorphed humanoid (because the Core Rulebook is for PCs and assumes that all PCs are humanoids) must have hands and be able to talk in the target form in order to cast spells.
The Polymorph rules do not expand to cover the entirety of the spellcasting system. They are specifically for polymorphed creatures, and that makes sense. If you've trained to cast magic by making intricate gestures with your fingers and you change into a form that has no fingers, then you're going to have a hard time casting spells. However, no rules in the game prevent a creature of that same race from casting spells.
This, this, this. A thousand times THIS.
Director of Narrative
|
I apologize for blink dog sages. It seemed so reasonable. ;)
As far as somatic components go, I can imagine pawing at the ground, gratuitous tail wagging, a leap, a shake of the head, a strangely lolling tongue, a shake that ripples from snout to tail, you know, movements "of the body".
I apologize for blink dog sages. It seemed so reasonable. ;)
Ah, so you're the culprit.
Throw 'em in the dungeon.
|
Imagine my surprise coming home from a holiday weekend to discover blink dogs as sorcerers broke the game I love. ;)
You didn't break the game, your arrogance to assume that you could possibly come up with interesting and valid ideas that were not immediately and explicitly supported by the existing rules (or at least brand new and clearly spelled out ones), that broke the game. See that you don't do anything like this ever again! :D
|
Director of Narrative
|
Honestly, multiple people touched each monster entry in that book. And while I put the idea of blink dog sages and stuff like that in the entry, it was developed past my original turnover into something even better than what I handed in.
I also can't shake the idea that I took that concept from something older in the game, but I can't put my finger on it. Each of the older monsters I did for both Bestiaries I looked at each incarnation of the creature throughout the game and tried to put a bit of those representations into the stats and the flavor. For some of them, I had three or four monster books spanning 30 years spread out in front of me for a reference while working to boil it down to 600-700 words.
Just double-checked the rules for the sorcerer class. No requirement to have hands was listed.
In Gregory Maguire's book _Wicked_, one of the most powerful witches in Oz was a woman who was born without arms. She cast spells by waving her body, and if she needed a focus or had to enchant something, it had to be by her (in Pathfinder terms, in her space).
I would rule, as a GM, that each species develops somatic components appropriate for its species. And if, for some reason, I don't know why, you are playing a human spellcaster who was born without arms, I would (1. I would probably never allow such a PC into my game, because I don't believe in starting PCs out with crippling disadvantages) 2. rule that this PC learned to cast spells without arms, using other somatic movements.
If a PC started out with two arms and then somehow lost them and somehow continued play as a PC, I'd rule that once he gained a level, he figured out how to compensate for the lack of arms. In the meantime, he can make spellcraft checks to compensate before this happens.
Also, Sorcerers gain Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. So blink dog sorcerers don't need spell component pouches. As a DM, I would rule that blink dogs, because of their blinking, just need to have the spell components and focus and items to be enchanted in their area. I suppose an alternative interpretation would be to have them supress their blinking until the spell was cast.
I have a house rule in my games that states "If the book says a creature can do something, then the creature can do that thing."
I have a house rule in games that I run, that says: "If I say that a creature can do something, then that creature can do that thing."
|
Threads like this make me wonder if there is any imagination left in RPG. A blink dog or any other intelligent creature can take a class level because...Why Not? There is nothing in the rules that says it can't and even if there was, just ignore it. Specifically, GMs are encouraged to let the enjoyment of the game over-ride minor rules-lawyering. Most of the rules were written with the player-character in mind, not the monsters. There are more exceptions to normal rules used by monsters than players. The players need to know what they can/cannot do and how to develop their characters. If the GM creates a blue-skinned lizard with six legs and four eyes, with cleric levels and a breath weapon of entangling jelly, why can't it be? If the players enjoy encountering it, who cares. If my players asked me how come a blink dog can cast without hands and they can't, I would reply, "Evolution has allowed them to develop spell-casting reflective of their anatomy." Enough said, move on...
I hope the powers-that-be at Paizo do not waste their valuable time commenting on easily interpreted rules like this when they could be focused on the next great publication...can't wait for Ultimate Magic.
I wrote up a Cat Witch (Backstory is that she was a Human Witch, reincarnated into a Cat form). Took Improved Familiar (Quasit) who masquerades as a Human Wizard.
-Uriel
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
Since blink dogs don't have hands, they can't use spells with somatic components.
Ah, but that section of the book isn't addressing blink dogs. It's addressing you, the player of a humanoid sorcerer. ;)
|
|
I seen a penguin sorceror flappin his little flippers and fireballin a rabid elephant seal.
"I seen a horse fly".
"I seen a dragon fly".
"I seen a HOUSE fly!"
"I seen a hot dog stand.
I seen a rubber band.
I seen a needle that winked it's eye.
But I think I seen about ev-ery-thing, when I see a blink dog scry!"
I was more thinking about how a blink dog blood line could exist.
Bloodline is an extremely bad term, as it implies interbreeding. But even things like infernal contracts can cause sorcerer bloodlines to establish themselves. Maybe great-grandpa(w?) was found as a baby and raised by Blink Dogs. Maybe grandpa slaughtered a pack of Blink Dogs and made Blink Dog stew. Not every sorcerer has to be the freakish result of a miscegenation...
I was more thinking about how a blink dog blood line could exist.Bloodline is an extremely bad term, as it implies interbreeding. But even things like infernal contracts can cause sorcerer bloodlines to establish themselves. Maybe great-grandpa(w?) was found as a baby and raised by Blink Dogs. Maybe grandpa slaughtered a pack of Blink Dogs and made Blink Dog stew. Not every sorcerer has to be the freakish result of a miscegenation...
Bloodline is perfectly valid, in all your examples. In all of them, the current generation is removed by at least one generation from the event that caused the change. Whether it's interbreeding, affect of magical exposure to DNA, or blessings of dead gods, the event that put the magic into the family tree caused it to be passed on, blood to blood, so bloodline is correct. It's inherited from your parents. Whether great grand ma made a pact with a devil, slept with a blink dog, or drank an infusion of elemental essence, she passed that legacy on to her kids through her blood.
Because.
Bloodline is perfectly valid, in all your examples.I was more thinking about how a blink dog blood line could exist.Bloodline is an extremely bad term,
Except for the part where 'Blink Dog Bloodline' implies you have Blink Dog ancestors. That's why Dark Mistress is dancing around the issue. While the sorcerer write-up is fairly clear that ancestral sex with said creature is not (necessarily) the source of the powers, most people will still draw that conclusion on hearing the word 'bloodline'. How many sorcerers brag about "The blood of dragons flows through my veins!!"?
I'd argue (probably successfully, given there's nothing to stop one from multiclassing into any Sorcerer bloodline you'd want) that it takes ZERO ancestry-passed-down powers to become a sorcerer. Have a red dragon steak, smoke an angel feather, poke a dead aboleth with a stick. Select Sorcerer class level..."Hey, wow, super powers!!" I guess you could call that person the 'start' of a bloodline, if you like, but it's a stretch when it's just one guy/gal. ;-)
Now, of course 'bloodline' sounds lots cooler than 'contagion' or 'taint' or even 'affinity' or 'sympathy'.
Anyways, I hope we're clear...your ancestors having sex with magical critters is not required to justify your sorcerer's powers.
Except for the part where 'Blink Dog Bloodline' implies you have Blink Dog ancestors. That's why Dark Mistress is dancing around the issue. While the sorcerer write-up is fairly clear that ancestral sex with said creature is not (necessarily) the source of the powers, most people will still draw that conclusion on hearing the word 'bloodline'.
Bloodline does not imply "ancestral sex" with strange creatures. People infer that it does, and that inference is not necessarily correct, as you admit. The problem isn't the term. It's some people jumping to conclusions.
Except for the part where 'Blink Dog Bloodline' implies you have Blink Dog ancestors. That's why Dark Mistress is dancing around the issue. While the sorcerer write-up is fairly clear that ancestral sex with said creature is not (necessarily) the source of the powers, most people will still draw that conclusion on hearing the word 'bloodline'.Bloodline does not imply "ancestral sex" with strange creatures. People infer that it does, and that inference is not necessarily correct, as you admit. The problem isn't the term. It's some people jumping to conclusions.
Agreed, as I posted earlier, but that seems to have been missed as he fixated on breeding.
Honestly, there are dozens of methods of introducing the idea of magic into your bloodline. However, I personally find eating sentient creatures to be much more distasteful (dragon steaks, blink dog stew) than the idea of polymorphed experimentation. The entire Xanth series is based off the idea of magical cross-breeding.
And, I really don't want it to be 'Oh, I poked a magic hornet's nest and now I have super powers'. That's just incredibly lame and makes a sorcerer a joke instead of the proud inheritor of a magical lineage.
How can a ghost cast? It doesn't even have a physical body? ;)
I'd like a more serious answer to the below question if you don't mind.
Are non-humanoid spellcasting monsters supposed to work differently from v3.5 rules? And if so, how is it different exactly?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Bloodline does not imply "ancestral sex" with strange creatures. People infer that it does, and that inference is not necessarily correct.
It would be interesting if that were a common in-game preception of the NPC population, as well.
Human PC: "No, my great-grandmother made a pact with an aberration. She did not have sex with an aberration."
Elf NPC: "Sonny, I knew your great-grandpappy, and I don't reckon you can say that for sure."
|
|
Bloodline does not imply "ancestral sex" with strange creatures. People infer that it does, and that inference is not necessarily correct.It would be interesting if that were a common in-game preception of the NPC population, as well.
Human PC: "No, my great-grandmother made a pact with an aberration. She did not have sex with an aberration."
Elf NPC: "Sonny, I knew your great-grandpappy, and I don't reckon you can say that for sure."
The bargain was sealed with a kiss ;)
How can a ghost cast? It doesn't even have a physical body? ;)I'd like a more serious answer to the below question if you don't mind.
Are non-humanoid spellcasting monsters supposed to work differently from v3.5 rules? And if so, how is it different exactly?
You are way to fixated on this. Monsters don't care about people rules in some cases, and I would not hold my breath for list of those exceptions because a developer would have to write a new rule for every cool idea he came up with.
developer 1: I have an idea of this floating ball of light that cast as a cleric, and channels energy
developer 2:(lead developer): How can it channel and cast without a holy symbol to present. We would have to make a rule for it since no rules cover it. The new rule would take us past our page count limit for the book, sorry.
I think if a developer says a monster can do something that is enough of an exception to the rule for me.
I don't see how anything is different. Nagas were casters in 3.5 without arms. Do you have a specific example you want to use that would work in 3.5, but not PF?
I don't see how anything is different. Nagas were casters in 3.5 without arms. Do you have a specific example you want to use that would work in 3.5, but not PF?
Nagas are innate casters. Blink dogs are not. Makes a big difference.
|
How can a ghost cast? It doesn't even have a physical body? ;)I'd like a more serious answer to the below question if you don't mind.
Are non-humanoid spellcasting monsters supposed to work differently from v3.5 rules? And if so, how is it different exactly?
I think his answer invalidated your argument nicely.
Nagas are innate casters. Blink dogs are not. Makes a big difference.I don't see how anything is different. Nagas were casters in 3.5 without arms. Do you have a specific example you want to use that would work in 3.5, but not PF?
I see. I think my developer example handles that. Now that I think about it I should have saved the floating ball of light idea for RPG Superstar.
As for a general rule I don't think it is different. I think somebody had a cool idea and ignored the rules which is not a bad thing sometimes. If a DM wanted to make a monster into a caster I don't see what the issue would be. If he were worried about the players saying he can't do it then he could make up a macguffin/plot device that allowed it. In the end it does not really matter.IIRC the blink dogs are mostly limited to celestial bloodlines so maybe only some of them are innate spellcasters.
A lot of rules were cut out. I just assume the rules exist in PF unless there is a rule against it.I've seen people (outside this thread) get yelled at on these boards for making such assumptions.
Somehow I missed that part, but most of the time it(the old rule) was the only rule that would work. As an example a lot of words in the 3.5 glossary are still used in PF, but the actual definitions were not ported over.
Okay, Devil's Advocate here, because I think both sides are kind of arguing past one another here.
For those that don't think there needs to be a rule:
There used to specifically be a rule in 3.5 that said what creatures with non-humanoid physiology could cast spells normally without any special provisions, and it was pretty specific what creatures qualified. When dragons and nagas are mentioned, its not randomly looking for examples, its because the rules very specifically said they could cast spells normally, where as 3.5 blink dog would have to use still spell or cast spells without somatic components, expressly as detailed in the rules.
For those that think there needs to be a rule:
I think the point that a lot of people are making is that, 1) Pathfinder, by default, assumes you are using a PC race from the Core rulebook and 2) because of the above assumption, further rules clarifications aren't needed, because if you are using a non-Core race, your GM is already starting to make judgement calls so its in the GMs hands, not the core rules.
For What Its Worth
I think that when the Core rulebook first came out, there was a lot of assumption that Paizo forgot to put rule X in if it wasn't mentioned. In some cases, this may have been true, but I think the longer we get from launch, and the more we find some stuff that was intentionally changed that was fairly specialized, the more it become apparent that rules that were left out were most likely left out on purpose, especially when that omission seems to be in accordance with how Paizo has designed the game otherwise.
Nagas are innate casters. Blink dogs are not. Makes a big difference.
Obviously not since blink dogs can be sorcerers and blink dogs don't have arms. Also, let's not forget that blink dog sorcerers first learned their skills from the awakened battle emu sorcerers of the Silvershadow Plains.
Typical Awakened Battle Emu Sorcerer 1
Init +6; Senses low-light vision; Perception +12
DEFENSE
AC 18, touch 16, flat-footed 12 (+2 natural armor, +6 Dex)
hp 44 (4d8+16 plus 1d6+4)
Fort +8, Ref +10, Will +4
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee 2 kicks +6 (1d3+3), or
Melee 2 kicks +5 (1d3+5) (Power Attack)
Special Attacks shadowstrike 5/day
Sorcerer Spells Known (CL 1st):
1st (4/day)- flare burst (Fort 13), shocking grasp
0 - detect magic, disrupt undead, read magic, resistance
Bloodline shadow
STATISTICS
Str 17, Dex 22, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 14
Base Atk +3; CMB +9; CMD 22
Feats Agile Maneuvers, Endurance, Eschew Materials (B), Power Attack, Run (B)
Skills Acrobatics +6 (+10 jumping), Intimidate +6, Knowledge (arcana) +4, Perception +12, Spellcraft +4, Stealth +13; Racial Modifiers +4 Perception
SQ combat trained
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever it casts a spell with the [darkness] descriptor or the shadow subschool, it gains a circumstance bonus on Stealth checks equal to the spell’s level for 1d4 rounds.
Combat Trained (Ex): This emu has been specifically trained for combat (see the Handle Animal skill) so its kicks are not treated as secondary attacks.
Shadowstrike (Sp): It can make a melee touch attack as a standard action that inflicts 1d4 points of nonlethal damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels it possesses. In addition, the target is dazzled for 1 minute. Creatures with low-light vision or darkvision are not dazzled by this ability. It can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + its Charisma modifier.
|
|
For those that don't think there needs to be a rule:
There used to specifically be a rule in 3.5 that said what creatures with non-humanoid physiology could cast spells normally without any special provisions, and it was pretty specific what creatures qualified. When dragons and nagas are mentioned, its not randomly looking for examples, its because the rules very specifically said they could cast spells normally, where as 3.5 blink dog would have to use still spell or cast spells without somatic components, expressly as detailed in the rules.
I realize that many people are concerned with backward compatibility from Pathfinder to 3.5. I'll admit that I was far more concerned with it when Pathfinder first came out. Now my gaming group uses the Core Rulebook plus APG (and we'll use Ultimate Magic once that's released).
I think it's problematic, though, to argue that a rule from 3.5 exists (or ought to exist) just because the Pathfinder developers didn't strictly state, "By the way, this doesn't exist". If it's not a rule in Pathfinder, it's not a rule in Pathfinder. However, there is nothing that stops a Pathfinder DM (like Ravingdork) from declaring that a rule from 3.5 which would prohibit a Blink Dog from casting spells (or limit them to spells with Still Spell) is a rule in their campaign. Go for it. Whatever floats your boat. It's your game.
Backward compatibility doesn't mean we're all still playing 3.5, and it isn't reasonable to expect developers to waste their time explaining how a creature description could possibly be valid when there clearly is a rule from 3.5 (that doesn't exist anywhere in Pathfinder) that invalidates it.
For those that don't think there needs to be a rule:
There used to specifically be a rule in 3.5 that said what creatures with non-humanoid physiology could cast spells normally without any special provisions, and it was pretty specific what creatures qualified. When dragons and nagas are mentioned, its not randomly looking for examples, its because the rules very specifically said they could cast spells normally, where as 3.5 blink dog would have to use still spell or cast spells without somatic components, expressly as detailed in the rules.
I realize that many people are concerned with backward compatibility from Pathfinder to 3.5. I'll admit that I was far more concerned with it when Pathfinder first came out. Now my gaming group uses the Core Rulebook plus APG (and we'll use Ultimate Magic once that's released).
I think it's problematic, though, to argue that a rule from 3.5 exists (or ought to exist) just because the Pathfinder developers didn't strictly state, "By the way, this doesn't exist". If it's not a rule in Pathfinder, it's not a rule in Pathfinder. However, there is nothing that stops a Pathfinder DM (like Ravingdork) from declaring that a rule from 3.5 which would prohibit a Blink Dog from casting spells (or limit them to spells with Still Spell) is a rule in their campaign. Go for it. Whatever floats your boat. It's your game.
Backward compatibility doesn't mean we're all still playing 3.5, and it isn't reasonable to expect developers to waste their time explaining how a creature description could possibly be valid when there clearly is a rule from 3.5 (that doesn't exist anywhere in Pathfinder) that invalidates it.
I think the issue is that many 3.5 rules were edited improperly, or not included not as a design feature, but by accident, and sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. I don't think this particular case matters to most people since it does not affect pc's, but some do.
I think it's problematic, though, to argue that a rule from 3.5 exists (or ought to exist) just because the Pathfinder developers didn't strictly state, "By the way, this doesn't exist". If it's not a rule in Pathfinder, it's not a rule in Pathfinder. However, there is nothing that stops a Pathfinder DM (like Ravingdork) from declaring that a rule from 3.5 which would prohibit a Blink Dog from casting spells (or limit them to spells with Still Spell) is a rule in their campaign. Go for it. Whatever floats your boat. It's your game.
The problem is this: even if the game developers deliberately excluded the v3.5 rule when they made Pathfinder, the remaining rules as written simply don't allow blink dogs to cast spells with somatic components.
Since this obviously goes against their intent, there is a disconnect, a contradiction. I merely want clarification on the matter.
|
the remaining rules as written simply don't allow blink dogs to cast spells with somatic components.
Can you describe the somatic component to any spell in the game?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AinS9NG-mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJmpS-MQvmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZskTOXFmbQ
How do you know these "measured and precise" hand movements aren't to be found in the above videos? There's not a doggone rule anywhere in the game that prevents a blink dog from being a sorcerer.
|
|
Specific rulings override the general ruling. The general ruling as per the Core Rulebook is that you need hands to cast spells with somatic components. The specific rule is that the Bestiary 2 entry for blink dogs says they sometimes have sorcerer levels. It's frankly ridiculous to assume that such a species would have numbers of sorcerers worth mentioning if they were limited to only casting spells with verbal components, or having a feat tax to use the bare essentials of their class.
In other words, blink dogs can cast sorcerer spells with somatic components just fine...m'kay?
The real question is how the hell those silly humans cast spells without a tail. I mean, c'mon, dragons have tails, blink dogs have tails...all the best sorcerers have tails. It's absolutely ridiculous. I'm considering banning races without tails from being somatic spellcasters unless they pay a feat tax, or find a reference in a Pathfinder RPG product stating that their specific race is allowed to cast spells with somatic components despite their crippling lack of a tail.
For the price of a single feat, any druid can learn to cast spells while looking like a dog, substituting various natural noises and gestures for the verbal and somatic components of the spell.
Why shouldn't an intelligent animal who is used to their natural form be able to do the same?
|
|
Can you describe the somatic component to any spell in the game?
To cast Hideous Laughter, you throw tiny tarts at the target of the spell and wave a feather in the air (like you just don't care). Which actually just leads to my theory that it's not a magical spell at all...the crippling laughter is just the natural reaction to such a stupid "attack".
Final answer: Blink dogs have hands.
There's not a doggone rule anywhere in the game that prevents a blink dog from being a sorcerer.
No. No there isn't.
However, there is a rule saying they need hands to be able to cast spells with somatic components.
For the price of a single feat, any druid can learn to cast spells while looking like a dog, substituting various natural noises and gestures for the verbal and somatic components of the spell.
Why shouldn't an intelligent animal who is used to their natural form be able to do the same?
All it takes is silent spell.
There's not a doggone rule anywhere in the game that prevents a blink dog from being a sorcerer.No. No there isn't.
However, there is a rule saying they need hands to be able to cast spells with somatic components.
All it takes is silent spell.For the price of a single feat, any druid can learn to cast spells while looking like a dog, substituting various natural noises and gestures for the verbal and somatic components of the spell.
Why shouldn't an intelligent animal who is used to their natural form be able to do the same?
Why? Druids don't need it. Natural Spell allows druids to do it in any form whatsoever, without a need for hands, mouth, or even noticable appendadiges.
The rules are written from the perspective of humanoid players. Just because they don't spell out rules for non-humanoids does not mean they must follow the exact same rules to a point of obsurdity.
This, this, this. A thousand times THIS.I really don't get the confusion here. There's nothing FAQ worthy. There is no rule that a creature must have hands or have automatic natural spellcasting in order to cast spells. None whatsoever. There is a rule, in the Polymorph subschool rules, that states that a Polymorphed humanoid (because the Core Rulebook is for PCs and assumes that all PCs are humanoids) must have hands and be able to talk in the target form in order to cast spells.
The Polymorph rules do not expand to cover the entirety of the spellcasting system. They are specifically for polymorphed creatures, and that makes sense. If you've trained to cast magic by making intricate gestures with your fingers and you change into a form that has no fingers, then you're going to have a hard time casting spells. However, no rules in the game prevent a creature of that same race from casting spells.
Since people seem to have missed it...
In one of my responses to the thread on Norse gods, I raised the possibility that two human sorcerers might not use the same somatic components. One sorcerer might be from a "school" that would point and clap, while the other might make intricate gestures around a focal object to accomplish the same goal.
As a GM, I hated the trend in the late 80s of the game designers describing the somatic components in their spells, and I am glad that trend did not catch on. I'd rather leave that to mine or the players' imaginations.
]Nagas are innate casters. Blink dogs are not. Makes a big difference.Just to throw a little wrench into this debate...
ALL sorcerers are innate casters. They are all casting based on some form of internal magic. Just because the casting is coming from class levels rather than racial hit dice doesn't make the Sorcerer spellcasting any less innate.
Conceptually speaking, you are absolutely right. However the rules do make a distinction between creatures who gain spellcasting ability from their race, and those who must take class levels in order to acquire it.
|
Can I put my hand up and ask?
What exactly does this specific ruling add or subtract to the game?
What does it add or subtract to your game specifically?
Are you likely to encounter a cabal of Blink Dog sorcerers soon?
Will your players say: "But they don't have hands?" Causing blink dog sorcerers everywhere to disappear in a puff of logic?
|
|
How about this. Any creature that gains a level in sorcerer that lacks hands gains a free feat:
Substitute Somatic Component
This feat allows a creature to substitute one type of somatic component for another type. For example, instead of making shadow puppets with it's hands, the creature can make shadow puppets with it's claws, or paws, or tentacles, or flippers, or pseudopods, or whatever the hell it has.
I know how Blink Dogs can be Sorcerers!