Organized Play Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how knowledgeable Mr. In-Universe is. It's been explicitly noted in a Pathfinder Tales novel, and thus by someone in-universe, that it's a known fact among magical scholars that Sorcerer is what you call someone with inborn (as opposed to learned or imbued) magic[...]
It's important to note that this was ridiculously rare knowledge. Varian Jeggare is legitimately one of the best educated people in the Inner Sea by a not insignificant margin. He may be one of the most educated people on all of Golarion, with the exception of Old Mage Jatembe level humanoids and incredibly old dragons or other near-immortals who have eons to collect their data, and he had never even heard of sorcerers before his convo with the Queen of Thorns. Her revealing to him that his magical aptitude issues were because he had an inherent font of magic that was fundamentally different from what wizards do was a life-altering revelation for a man who attended the finest universities in the Inner Sea, traveled across all of the Inner Sea and a fair portion of Tian Xia, and held a position of some import amongst the Pathfinder Society, an organization dedicated to the accrual and preservation of knowledge from all corners of the globe. This means that virtually no one in-universe has any idea what a sorcerer is or how to differentiate one from a wizard, cleric, or any other type of spellcaster.
It's important to note that this was ridiculously rare knowledge. Varian Jeggare is legitimately one of the best educated people in the Inner Sea by a not insignificant margin. He may be one of the most educated people on all of Golarion, with the exception of Old Mage Jatembe level humanoids and incredibly old dragons or other near-immortals who have eons to collect their data, and he had never even heard of sorcerers before his convo with the Queen of Thorns. Her revealing to him that his magical aptitude issues were because he had an inherent font of magic that was fundamentally different from what wizards do was a life-altering revelation for a man who attended the finest universities in the Inner Sea, traveled across all of the Inner Sea and a fair portion of Tian Xia, and held a position of some import amongst the Pathfinder Society, an organization dedicated to the accrual and preservation of knowledge from all corners of the globe. This means that virtually no one in-universe has any idea what a sorcerer is or how to differentiate one from a wizard, cleric, or any other type of spellcaster.Depends on how knowledgeable Mr. In-Universe is. It's been explicitly noted in a Pathfinder Tales novel, and thus by someone in-universe, that it's a known fact among magical scholars that Sorcerer is what you call someone with inborn (as opposed to learned or imbued) magic[...]
He missed the memo in the Spymaster's Handbook that between Knowledge Arcana and Knowledge Local you know all about PC class abilities and feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to note that this was ridiculously rare knowledge. Varian Jeggare is legitimately one of the best educated people in the Inner Sea by a not insignificant margin. He may be one of the most educated people on all of Golarion, with the exception of Old Mage Jatembe level humanoids and incredibly old dragons or other near-immortals who have eons to collect their data, and he had never even heard of sorcerers before his convo with the Queen of Thorns. Her revealing to him that his magical aptitude issues were because he had an inherent font of magic that was fundamentally different from what wizards do was a life-altering revelation for a man who attended the finest universities in the Inner Sea, traveled across all of the Inner Sea and a fair portion of Tian Xia, and held a position of some import amongst the Pathfinder Society, an organization dedicated to the accrual and preservation of knowledge from all corners of the globe. This means that virtually no one in-universe has any idea what a sorcerer is or how to differentiate one from a wizard, cleric, or any other type of spellcaster.Depends on how knowledgeable Mr. In-Universe is. It's been explicitly noted in a Pathfinder Tales novel, and thus by someone in-universe, that it's a known fact among magical scholars that Sorcerer is what you call someone with inborn (as opposed to learned or imbued) magic[...]
Canonically the Pathfinder Society employs dozens to hundreds of Sorcerers, and presumably have for hundreds of years. Each of those Sorcerer Pathfinders went through 2-4 years of training at the Grand Lodge. How is it possible for them to be largely unaware of them? Literally all it takes is one pathfinder to ask one sorcerer how they learned that spell to start a project on them. Such a project sounds exactly like what would be published in the Chronicles.
The Pathfinder Society being unaware of Sorcerers requires far, far more suspension of disbelief than anything magical I've come across in the game.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He missed the memo in the Spymaster's Handbook that between Knowledge Arcana and Knowledge Local you know all about PC class abilities and feats.It's important to note that this was ridiculously rare knowledge. Varian Jeggare is legitimately one of the best educated people in the Inner Sea by a not insignificant margin. He may be one of the most educated people on all of Golarion, with the exception of Old Mage Jatembe level humanoids and incredibly old dragons or other near-immortals who have eons to collect their data, and he had never even heard of sorcerers before his convo with the Queen of Thorns. Her revealing to him that his magical aptitude issues were because he had an inherent font of magic that was fundamentally different from what wizards do was a life-altering revelation for a man who attended the finest universities in the Inner Sea, traveled across all of the Inner Sea and a fair portion of Tian Xia, and held a position of some import amongst the Pathfinder Society, an organization dedicated to the accrual and preservation of knowledge from all corners of the globe. This means that virtually no one in-universe has any idea what a sorcerer is or how to differentiate one from a wizard, cleric, or any other type of spellcaster.Depends on how knowledgeable Mr. In-Universe is. It's been explicitly noted in a Pathfinder Tales novel, and thus by someone in-universe, that it's a known fact among magical scholars that Sorcerer is what you call someone with inborn (as opposed to learned or imbued) magic[...]
That's not really the case. None of the recall intrigues actually give you any class information, they just let you identify a specific feat or class-based effect. So e.g. Varian using Recall Intrigues to identify a psychic's use of Defensive Prognostication could go:
Varian: "Ah, yes, that's a divinatory technique for avoiding harm. I believe the Vudrani call it... Well, the translation is roughly 'defensive prognostication'."
Radovan: "Huh, where do you suppose she picked that up?"
Varian: "I'm not sure. It's one of those thing the Vudrani wizards seem to have sorted out."
Or post Queen of Thorns Varian might go:
"I don't know, maybe she's a sorcerer? The last time I ran into magic I didn't know anything about other than what it did, it turned out I was a sorcerer. Let's go with that."
"Class" is not one of the pieces of information granted by Recall Intrigues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not needing to explain why spells no longer exist, or do something completely different mechanically is the same as not needing to explain why Rogues and Fighters no longer have different base-attack-bonuses, or that a Cleric now gets class feats, or that skills now have proficiencies and not ranks.
No person IN WORLD discussed rules mechanics. Period. They just existed in the world. Just like you don't have a conversation about the relative gravitational field strength at the height of the building versus the surface of the earth at sea level (or how sea level is an abstraction itself and varies by location), you just say that the item fell off the roof.
In our games schools of magic certainly existed. So did spell levels. Spells were first categorised by an arcane mage called Vance. It is called the Vancian scale. This year the scale was revised with the removal of 0 th level spells and the introduction of a 10th Level category.
Not all spellcasters have accepted the new scale and prefer the older one.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Canonically the Pathfinder Society employs dozens to hundreds of Sorcerers, and presumably have for hundreds of years. Each of those Sorcerer Pathfinders went through 2-4 years of training at the Grand Lodge. How is it possible for them to be largely unaware of them? Literally all it takes is one pathfinder to ask one sorcerer how they learned that spell to start a project on them. Such a project sounds exactly like what would be published in the Chronicles.The Pathfinder Society being unaware of Sorcerers requires far, far more suspension of disbelief than anything magical I've come across in the game. [
I mean, it is canon unless a hardcover very specifically overwrites it (which is super unlikely since we really like Dave Gross' work). And I don't know that canonically there is any specific number of sorcerers in the Pathfinder Society, or how many of them have any idea that that's where their magic comes from. The most supported sorcerer in Golarion canon cast spells and adventured for years without realizing he was a sorcerer. Class in something like a scenario, Adventure Path, or even player companion isn't terribly relevant to canon either; I can think of at least two rogues who became a swashbuckler and vigilante (respectively) when those classes came out and it was decided they fit the characters better. Class and expression of power are highly mutable elements in world unless they're directly addressed in lore; today's ranger is tomorrow's hunter and in-world nothing changed.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, we have, with the plethora of other things that were changed. Tier 4 and 6 casters do not exist anymore.
Well, yes they do. The mechanical implementation is different, but that doesn't mean much in-universe.
Paladins can not lay on hands and smite in the same combat.
Smite Evil is not a Focus Spell. So yes, they can.
Even if a strength spell does come back, odds are it won't increase your character's carrying capacity the same as it did 10 years ago.
This is not necessarily something anyone would notice in-universe. The spell's short duration means it was basically never used for this.
Option 1: Things did change, but our characters lack the ability to observe and record this fact.
Option 2: Things always worked like this.
These are not actually the only options.
Option 1 is not possible, because otherwise the lore would need to provide an explanation to all of the wizards who have noticed their numbers are completely different now, for all of the Paldins who can cast lay on hands far fewer times in a single combat. That leaves option 2, and if things "always worked like this" then continuity doesn't matter.
There is no option 3 where all of the details are different but somehow continuity is important.
The mechanics of the game changed, but they were always an inaccurate abstraction of how the world actually worked. The current version is also slightly inaccurate to how the world works, in a somewhat different way, but no more so.
In world, durations were never as precise as they are in either edition, for example. Both are slightly wrong abstractions for ease of play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, we have, with the plethora of other things that were changed. Tier 4 and 6 casters do not exist anymore. Paladins can not lay on hands and smite in the same combat. Even if a strength spell does come back, odds are it won't increase your character's carrying capacity the same as it did 10 years ago.Option 1: Things did change, but our characters lack the ability to observe and record this fact.
Option 2: Things always worked like this.Option 1 is not possible, because otherwise the lore would need to provide an explanation to all of the wizards who have noticed their numbers are completely different now, for all of the Paldins who can cast lay on hands far fewer times in a single combat. That leaves option 2, and if things "always worked like this" then continuity doesn't matter.
There is no option 3 where all of the details are different but somehow continuity is important.
Ultimately, why would issues of in-character continuity be that important? I can see why players may have a problem with an edition change - because things work differently, because things they liked in one edition are changed or gone, etc. But why would anyone feel it has to manifest as a continuity change in the campaign setting that characters would perceive? I really don't understand why it would be an issue.
If you're converting from one edition to another in the middle of a campaign, you're simply going to have to deal with the fact that some things changed form one edition to another whether it's dressed up with a "campaign changing event" or not. That's simply part of changing editions in a rules set when the changes are significant. If you don't want to deal with those changes, then don't change horses mid-stream. If you want to proceed with the switch, I suggest lots of hand-waving and not sweating it as the price you pay for switching.
If the conversion from one edition to the next is between campaigns, then it won't matter. You can just say "Things have always been this way".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to note that this was ridiculously rare knowledge. Varian Jeggare is legitimately one of the best educated people in the Inner Sea by a not insignificant margin. He may be one of the most educated people on all of Golarion, with the exception of Old Mage Jatembe level humanoids and incredibly old dragons or other near-immortals who have eons to collect their data, and he had never even heard of sorcerers before his convo with the Queen of Thorns.Depends on how knowledgeable Mr. In-Universe is. It's been explicitly noted in a Pathfinder Tales novel, and thus by someone in-universe, that it's a known fact among magical scholars that Sorcerer is what you call someone with inborn (as opposed to learned or imbued) magic[...]
This is incorrect. His shock was in regards to the idea that he might be a Sorcerer (or have had the potential to be), not that they existed.
A whole book before in Queen of Thorns, he mentions that Dragons have inborn magic 'like Sorcerers' rather than learned magic 'like Wizards' very casually without treating that like new or revelatory information, and significantly less well educated people seem quite clear on the difference in other books (the conversation I'm referring to is from The Worldwound Gambit, for example).
Now, in the aforementioned The Worldwound Gambit precisely one person in the entire group knows or cares about the distinction in question, but it seems well established among scholars in-universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it this way:
A person in setting is standing at the end of a hall and someone at the other end casts lightning bolt. What class are they?
They could be a Wizard, or Druid, or a Sorcerer (Draconic, Elemental, Imperial, or Fey). OR! They could be a cleric, because Clerics of Gozreh add lightning bolt to their spell list. So by IDing the spell you have successfully narrowed it down to three of the 4 possible spellcasting traditions. That's assuming their isn't an Occult spellcaster we don't know about that also adds lightning bolt to their spell list (a possibility I think is very likely once we get to see the Witch patrons).
This is why the average joe is likely to just call something that casts spells a wizard. Cause even the very educated can't tell them apart.
Another example: In Fall of Plaguestone an NPC refers to an Alchemist as a "chemyst witch" in character. Because they really can't tell the difference between an Alchemical Elixir and a magic potion.
ALSO! with the advent of ritual magic, anyone can "caste" powerful magical spells. "He raised an army of undead, he's obviously a powerful necromancer!" Except no levels of wizard, let alone necromancer are actually needed to do any of that (although it might not hurt).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why the average joe is likely to just call something that casts spells a wizard. Cause even the very educated can't tell them apart.
Well, more like they'll call them a Cleric if they're invoking a deity and waving a holy symbol around, a Druid if they have a pet bear, a Bard if they're carrying a harp, and a Wizard if they're wearing robes and carrying a book.
And the educated can tell the difference if they travel with them and discuss magic, though yeah, not likely from them casting a single spell (unless they use a Holy Symbol or musical instrument to cast it).
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is incorrect. His shock was in regards to the idea that he might be a Sorcerer (or have had the potential to be), not that they existed.
A whole book before in Queen of Thorns, he mentions that Dragons have inborn magic 'like Sorcerers' rather than learned magic 'like Wizards' very casually without treating that like new or revelatory information, and significantly less well educated people seem quite clear on the difference in other books (the conversation I'm referring to is from 'The Worldwound Gambit', for example).
He also meanders a bit across the books in the terminology he uses to refer to things like summoners (in which he occasionally refers to things that are presented elsewhere as summoners as variations of sorcerer and seems very cognizant of them at a high level when he actually meets one but never uses the term prior), but I suppose the ultimate thread is that class is pretty mutable and not necessarily recognizable in-world even to members of the class. The fact that a sorcerer can not know they are a sorcerer and be a highly social and mobile individual like Varian is still a strong canon indicator of how difficult applying any of those labels actually is.
(Pulled up my library for verification and you are, unsurprisingly, correct about the source of Varian's surprise.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes they do. The mechanical implementation is different, but that doesn't mean much in-universe.
Of course it does, people are able and unable to do things they used to.
Smite Evil is not a Focus Spell. So yes, they can.
My mistake, they are unable to cast lay on hands multiple times in a fight. Maxing out at 3, which is far less than they could 10 years ago. Either my Paladin is too stupid to to remember that he could use it more than 3 times in one battle and less than as many times as he wanted throughout the day, or lay on hands has always worked for him that way. If lay on hands has always worked for him that way, then continuity doesn't matter.
This is not necessarily something anyone would notice in-universe. The spell's short duration means it was basically never used for this.
But it's absolutely something they could and absolutely would notice changes in. Assuming no one in the academic world is keeping detailed notes is not a safe assumption. In fact it's a pretty insane assumption.
The mechanics of the game changed, but they were always an inaccurate abstraction of how the world actually worked. The current version is also slightly inaccurate to how the world works, in a somewhat different way, but no more so.
In world, durations were never as precise as they are in either edition, for example. Both are slightly wrong abstractions for ease of play.
Some were an inaccurate abstraction, some had highly observable and record-able effects. Spells lasting between 52-64 seconds being abstracted to a minute. A spell going from 1 min/lv to only 1 minute is an in-universe change that could be noticed and recorded in-universe.
So yes, either things did change and characters don't know it, or the universe always used 2E rules and continuity doesn't matter.
But why would anyone feel it has to manifest as a continuity change in the campaign setting that characters would perceive? I really don't understand why it would be an issue.
Details are the foundation upon which a story is build. If all of the details are different, then the story isn't the same. The "how" of something happening is just as important as the fact that it happened. I mean, you wouldn't say Varian Jeggare doesn't have any magic in 2E and never did, but all of his stories still by and large happened. You know, just imagine him doing something else when he busts out a riffle scroll. The mountain of other changes aren't really any different.
I mean, it is canon unless a hardcover very specifically overwrites it (which is super unlikely since we really like Dave Gross' work).
I mean this Dev quote right here tells you continuity doesn't matter. The details and story can and will be changed, and apparently it will be done without regard for what was previously established or what makes sense in the setting.
And I don't know that canonically there is any specific number of sorcerers in the Pathfinder Society, or how many of them have any idea that that's where their magic comes from. The most supported sorcerer in Golarion canon cast spells and adventured for years without realizing he was a sorcerer. Class in something like a scenario, Adventure Path, or even player companion isn't terribly relevant to canon either; I can think of at least two rogues who became a swashbuckler and vigilante (respectively) when those classes came out and it was decided they fit the characters better. Class and expression of power are highly mutable elements in world unless they're directly addressed in lore; today's ranger is tomorrow's hunter and in-world nothing changed.
There isn't a specific number, which is why I gave a range. They do have them and have for hundreds of years. The idea that the Society hasn't studied them is insane. Them knowing where their magic came from is also completely different than not knowing they don't cast magic by studying books or praying. In the same way, Jeggare not knowing he is a sorcerer is completely different than him and the Society not knowing anything about hem.
Going from Rogue to Swashbuckler/Vigilante also doesn't have nearly the mechanical differences that being able to and not being able to cast magic have. Yeah Blackjack going from Rogue to vanilla Vigilante works. It would have been an entirely different situation if he had gone from Rogue to Warlock Vigilante. More than a few changes I don't view as any different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He also meanders a bit across the books in the terminology he uses to refer to things like summoners (in which he occasionally refers to things that are presented elsewhere as summoners as variations of sorcerer and seems very cognizant of them at a high level when he actually meets one but never uses the term prior), but I suppose the ultimate thread is that class is pretty mutable and not necessarily recognizable in-world even to members of the class. The fact that a sorcerer can not know they are a sorcerer and be a highly social and mobile individual like Varian is still a strong canon indicator of how difficult applying any of those labels actually is.
(Pulled up my library for verification and you are, unsurprisingly, correct about the source of Varian's surprise.)
I had to check that one myself. :)
And yeah, the terminology, especially of more obscure Classes in-world, is clearly not perfectly standardized. The basic concept that 'Wizards learn magic, Sorcerers have it inborn' seems well established in the scholarly community of the Inner Sea, though.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had to check that one myself. :)
And yeah, the terminology, especially of more obscure Classes in-world, is clearly not perfectly standardized. The basic concept that 'Wizards learn magic, Sorcerers have it inborn' seems well established in the scholarly community of the Inner Sea, though.
Yeah, it seems to be a theoretically solid understanding of how magic occurs in humanoids accompanied by a lot of vagueness in practical application of that knowledge. Which is oddly perfect for the setting in a way that continues to grow my respect for the many creative folks I am surrounded by.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it does, people are able and unable to do things they used to.
Not really very much. A lot of the spell lists in question can be readily duplicated by multiclassing into, say, Cleric for a Paladin or Druid for a Ranger, and spell-less versions of both already existed.
My mistake, they are unable to cast lay on hands multiple times in a fight. Maxing out at 3, which is far less than they could 10 years ago. Either my Paladin is too stupid to to remember that he could use it more than 3 times in one battle and less than as many times as he wanted throughout the day, or lay on hands has always worked for him that way. If lay on hands has always worked for him that way, then continuity doesn't matter.
The idea is that how many times a Paladin can Lay on Hand in-universe is not that specific a number. It's a feeling of how much power their God (or whatever powers them) has granted, and might vary quite a bit from Paladin to Paladin or even from day to day. Maybe the days your Paladin only used it once they didn't have any more uses in-universe?
But it's absolutely something they could and absolutely would notice changes in. Assuming no one in the academic world is keeping detailed notes is not a safe assumption. In fact it's a pretty insane assumption.
Again, this assumes these things are standardized in-universe. That seems an unwarranted assumption, honestly.
Some were an inaccurate abstraction, some had highly observable and record-able effects. Spells lasting between 52-64 seconds being abstracted to a minute. A spell going from 1 min/lv to only 1 minute is an in-universe change that could be noticed and recorded in-universe.
Could it? Again, this assumes some degree of standardization in this specific area. I'm not sure that's strictly a thing. It clearly always works the same way for the same Wizard, but who's to say it's even in the same order of magnitude for a different one?
So yes, either things did change and characters don't know it, or the universe always used 2E rules and continuity doesn't matter.
I disagree. I've played a lot of games that abstract the real world in utterly different ways that result in different outcomes sometimes, but all approximate the real world closely enough to avoid violating suspension of disbelief. In the same way, two very different systems can approximate Golarion.
The idea is that how many times a Paladin can Lay on Hand in-universe is not that specific a number. It's a feeling of how much power their God (or whatever powers them) has granted, and might vary quite a bit from Paladin to Paladin or even from day to day. Maybe the days your Paladin only used it once they didn't have any more uses in-universe?
And your Paladin knows how many times they can do that. The lore showcases abilities in as standard method closely replicating mechanics. I'm not finding anything to suggest that in-universe Paladins of the same level having different numbers of lay on hands per day.
Could it? Again, this assumes some degree of standardization in this specific area. I'm not sure that's strictly a thing. It clearly always works the same way for the same Wizard, but who's to say it's even in the same order of magnitude for a different one?
Because not one of the stories has suggested that this is the case, or any of the other lore that I can fine. Everything about arcane magic follows it as a type of science, with quantifiable cause and effect. If you have an example of the lore showing magic working noticeably different for wizards of similar level, could you please provide it? Jeggare very much seems to be an exception and not anything approaching a rule.
I disagree. I've played a lot of games that abstract the real world in utterly different ways that result in different outcomes sometimes, but all approximate the real world closely enough to avoid violating suspension of disbelief. In the same way, two very different systems can approximate Golarion.
Can, but currently don't. And games that abstract the real world have an entirely different job than games that abstract a world where creation is as easy as destruction. Spells working with different minutes per level is a change large enough to require explanation. Wands going from 50 charges to once per day is a change large enough to require explanation. The explanation given is that things always worked like this, which means continuity doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what your class could do before, what that spell or magic item could do before. All that matters is what they can do now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The part that confuses me is the need for game mechanics to exist in-universe instead of being an abstraction of a universe.
Like DMW says, there's not really any evidence that in-universe paladins know how many times per day they can Lay on Hands... or that the game mechanics answer to that even is the same as the in-universe answer.
I think this is especially true in 2e where, it is important to remember, for the most part ONLY PCs have classes, while anyone who is not a PC is represented as an abstract bundle of game mechanics instead of a class.
The part that confuses me is the need for game mechanics to exist in-universe instead of being an abstraction of a universe.
Like DMW says, there's not really any evidence that in-universe paladins know how many times per day they can Lay on Hands... or that the game mechanics answer to that even is the same as the in-universe answer.
I think this is especially true in 2e where, it is important to remember, for the most part ONLY PCs have classes, while anyone who is not a PC is represented as an abstract bundle of game mechanics instead of a class.
There is in fact plenty of evidence, The books and comics certainly all suggest that. Nothing I can find in the lore suggests paladins wouldn't know how many times they can cast Lay on Hands a day, nor that paladins of the same level would have different casting amounts, nor that it would change on a daily basis as DMW suggests. If such an example exists, could you please provide it?
And from Dev posting using PC classes for NPCs is fine and expected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part that confuses me is the need for game mechanics to exist in-universe instead of being an abstraction of a universe.
Like DMW says, there's not really any evidence that in-universe paladins know how many times per day they can Lay on Hands... or that the game mechanics answer to that even is the same as the in-universe answer.
I think this is especially true in 2e where, it is important to remember, for the most part ONLY PCs have classes, while anyone who is not a PC is represented as an abstract bundle of game mechanics instead of a class.
There is in fact plenty of evidence, The books and comics certainly all suggest that. Nothing I can find in the lore suggests paladins wouldn't know how many times they can cast Lay on Hands a day, nor that paladins of the same level would have different casting amounts, nor that it would change on a daily basis as DMW suggests. If such an example exists, could you please provide it?
And from Dev posting using PC classes for NPCs is fine and expected.
If a dev posting earlier in this thread to say that people in-universe don't typically know what class they are isn't a good example, I don't know what I can provide.
Devs have said that using PC classes for NPCs is fine; it is not, however, the only assumption. For example, Hellnight Hill has both NPCs built with PC classes and NPCs not built that way.
So for example, in-universe, there isn't any way someone could tell the difference between "this person is a Paladin, the class" and "this person is an NPC who has Retributive Strike and Lay on Hands as part of their NPC ability bundle".
If a dev posting earlier in this thread to say that people in-universe don't typically know what class they are isn't a good example, I don't know what I can provide.
To begin with, Varian Jeggare very much seems to be an exception than anything approaching a rule as far as sorcerers and wizards are concerned. Later posts show that Jeggare does know about sorcerers and that there is a "theoretically solid understanding of how magic occurs in humanoids" within the setting. So please provide an actual example of a paladin within the setting having a different number of lay on hand uses each day.
So for example, in-universe, there isn't any way someone could tell the difference between "this person is a Paladin, the class" and "this person is an NPC who has Retributive Strike and Lay on Hands as part of their NPC ability bundle".
Sure there is, do they have the same weapon and armor training, skills, etc? Hell, do they follow a Paladin code? Experts can tell things apart from minute details. Certainly seems they'd be able to tell the difference between an entire class chassis and a couple of abilities being slapped on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure there is, do they have the same weapon and armor training, skills, etc? Hell, do they follow a Paladin code? Experts can tell things apart from minute details. Certainly seems they'd be able to tell the difference between an entire class chassis and a couple of abilities being slapped on.
Real world experts still don't know things as basic as why humans need to sleep or why ice is slippery, and that's in a world with a scientific ethos vastly beyond what is available in Golarion, and no literal magic.
"Obviously experts would know this" is a very weak argument. Who is paying these experts? Why do they care? How are they convincing paladins to stand around and be subjected to scientifically rigorous testing?
Sure there is, do they have the same weapon and armor training, skills, etc? Hell, do they follow a Paladin code? Experts can tell things apart from minute details. Certainly seems they'd be able to tell the difference between an entire class chassis and a couple of abilities being slapped on.Real world experts still don't know things as basic as why humans need to sleep or why ice is slippery, and that's in a world with a scientific ethos vastly beyond what is available in Golarion, and no literal magic.
"Obviously experts would know this" is a very weak argument. Who is paying these experts? Why do they care? How are they convincing paladins to stand around and be subjected to scientifically rigorous testing?
By comparing the things I already listed? Is "How could the possibly know?!?" Really your argument?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By comparing the things I already listed? Is "How could the possibly know?!?" Really your argument?Sure there is, do they have the same weapon and armor training, skills, etc? Hell, do they follow a Paladin code? Experts can tell things apart from minute details. Certainly seems they'd be able to tell the difference between an entire class chassis and a couple of abilities being slapped on.Real world experts still don't know things as basic as why humans need to sleep or why ice is slippery, and that's in a world with a scientific ethos vastly beyond what is available in Golarion, and no literal magic.
"Obviously experts would know this" is a very weak argument. Who is paying these experts? Why do they care? How are they convincing paladins to stand around and be subjected to scientifically rigorous testing?
I think the question is more "What reason and expectation is there that they should know these things?"
I don't imagine paladins are all that willing to sit and use their holy powers just to answer a scientist's question. Maybe an evil one strapped down a paladin one day and forced him to, but he's not likely the guy to share his research and certainly not his methodology very openly.
By comparing the things I already listed? Is "How could the possibly know?!?" Really your argument?Sure there is, do they have the same weapon and armor training, skills, etc? Hell, do they follow a Paladin code? Experts can tell things apart from minute details. Certainly seems they'd be able to tell the difference between an entire class chassis and a couple of abilities being slapped on.Real world experts still don't know things as basic as why humans need to sleep or why ice is slippery, and that's in a world with a scientific ethos vastly beyond what is available in Golarion, and no literal magic.
"Obviously experts would know this" is a very weak argument. Who is paying these experts? Why do they care? How are they convincing paladins to stand around and be subjected to scientifically rigorous testing?
I think the question is more "What reason and expectation is there that they should know these things?"
I don't imagine paladins are all that willing to sit and use their holy powers just to answer a scientist's question. Maybe an evil one strapped down a paladin one day and forced him to, but he's not likely the guy to share his research and certainly not his methodology very openly.
And who says it's some random scientist? Paladins would have a vested interest in that knowledge. The have orders dedicated to training more paladins. You think they are doing that by not knowing things about Paladins? And why would Paladins be so opposed to working with scholors, of expanding knowledge, of creating more and better paladins?
Anyone found an example of a Paladin's number of lay on hands changing on a daily basis?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And who says it's some random scientist? Paladins would have a vested interest in that knowledge. The have orders dedicated to training more paladins. You think they are doing that by not knowing things about Paladins? And why would Paladins be so opposed to working with scholors, of expanding knowledge, of creating more and better paladins?
Anyone found an example of a Paladin's number of lay on hands changing on a daily basis?
I'm not really engaging this argument because as I said before, it fundamentally makes no sense to me. The idea that game mechanics actually exist in the game world completely breaks verisimilitude for me. Otherwise you end up with a world like the Tippyverse or Harry Potter and the Natural 20. And while those are fun to read, they are comical and nonsensical settings.
No one in the game world has a level or a class or ability scores - Michael said basically as much earlier in this thread. People just have things they can do and a general sense of how competent they are relative to other people.
Sorta like the real world.
The game mechanics are an imperfect abstraction of that reality, just like they are an imperfect abstraction of the real world.
I'll give you the same challenge, though - find me an example of someone in the fiction knowing exactly how many spells they can cast per day, or exactly how many times they can lay on hands. The counter-example you are asking for doesn't exist because the thing you are positing in the first place doesn't exist either.
For the past 10 years I have consistently seen players communicate in character how many spell slots (or daily powers in 4e) they have left. I have never seen anyone say "that's OOC knowledge. You cant communicate that ICly." Your claim that it doesnt exist ICly is so foreign to how I've seen people play.
Wizards even have abilities that let's them swap prepared spells. Preparing spells HAS to exist ICly or else wizards simply cant do it. It is strange to me to suggest that a wizard doesnt know how many spells he can prepare at the start of the day.
Is that truly how you play your game?
And who says it's some random scientist? Paladins would have a vested interest in that knowledge. The have orders dedicated to training more paladins. You think they are doing that by not knowing things about Paladins? And why would Paladins be so opposed to working with scholors, of expanding knowledge, of creating more and better paladins?
Anyone found an example of a Paladin's number of lay on hands changing on a daily basis?
I'm not really engaging this argument because as I said before, it fundamentally makes no sense to me. The idea that game mechanics actually exist in the game world completely breaks verisimilitude for me. Otherwise you end up with a world like the Tippyverse or Harry Potter and the Natural 20. And while those are fun to read, they are comical and nonsensical settings.
No one in the game world has a level or a class or ability scores - Michael said basically as much earlier in this thread. People just have things they can do and a general sense of how competent they are relative to other people.
Sorta like the real world.
The game mechanics are an imperfect abstraction of that reality, just like they are an imperfect abstraction of the real world.
I'll give you the same challenge, though - find me an example of someone in the fiction knowing exactly how many spells they can cast per day, or exactly how many times they can lay on hands. The counter-example you are asking for doesn't exist because the thing you are positing in the first place doesn't exist either.
In "Prince of Wolves" Jeggare specifically mentions spells are prepared individually. This means in universe characters are aware that spells are individual things. We also know that people can prepare only so many spells. This means that a character can prepare individual spells until they can't anymore. They can count, and they can continue to do this each day, which means they know how many spells they can cast per day.
Now then, do you have any actual evidence to suggest that the number of uses of any ability changing on a daily basis? Because that is the only way characters couldn't know their daily limit. Like a Wizard, a Paladin can simply go through their daily uses and count. If it doesn't change daily, they know how many times they can do it. Why does characters being able to count break your verisimilitude?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the past 10 years I have consistently seen players communicate in character how many spell slots (or daily powers in 4e) they have left. I have never seen anyone say "that's OOC knowledge. You cant communicate that ICly." Your claim that it doesnt exist ICly is so foreign to how I've seen people play.
Wizards even have abilities that let's them swap prepared spells. Preparing spells HAS to exist ICly or else wizards simply cant do it. It is strange to me to suggest that a wizard doesnt know how many spells he can prepare at the start of the day.
Is that truly how you play your game?
Prepared spells absolutely must exist IC, I agree. And a Wizard obviously knows how many of them he has.
However, I feel like the assumption that all Wizards of the same level have the same number of them and they would thus notice if it changed is not necessarily correct.
If the number of spells a '1st to 2nd level' (ie: one who can cast only 1st level spells...the closest anyone in-universe can peg a 'level') Wizard can prepare is between 2 and 8 in-universe (and always has been), then the change between PF1 and PF2 can't readily be noticed in universe.
Now, in the game, that number is simplified down (more in PF2 than PF1), for mechanical consistency between PCs, sure, but that doesn't really mean anything about the world.
The same is true of most such abilities. Maybe some Paladins have Lay on Hands as a Focus Spell (ie: endlessly replenishable, but effectively only one use per fight) and others as a daily pool depending on the specific details of their empowerment in-universe. In PF1 you only played the second kind, and in PF2 you only play the first. Again, for reasons of balance and consistency.
If you assume that kind of increased variation between characters beyond what the rules reflect directly, then only the nonexistence of certain spells (ie: if they actually do never publish new stat-boost spells) or trying to convert a PC by name and directly will cause any continuity errors at all. And the latter is just a bad idea in the first place, IMO.
The same is true of most such abilities. Maybe some Paladins have Lay on Hands as a Focus Spell (ie: endlessly replenishable, but effectively only one use per fight) and others as a daily pool depending on the specific details of their empowerment in-universe. In PF1 you only played the second kind, and in PF2 you only play the first. Again, for reasons of balance and consistency.
Do you have any examples of lore that suggests this is true?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, I feel like the assumption that all Wizards of the same level have the same number of them and they would thus notice if it changed is not necessarily correct.
How many PC wizards must a wizard meet before he realises there is a standard range of 6th level spells that 99.9999% of all wizards fall into?
I get it. The rules have changed between editions. I have run Eberron in both D&D 4e and PF2e and despite the number of similarities between the two games, there are sufficient differences that if you were to try to model that ICly it wouldn’t really make sense.
But it is a fact that how magic functions has fundamentally changed. It is a “retcon”. If Corrine (or whoever) wants to take that mechanical change and declare that because it has changed continuity cannot matter, let them. It is certainly an extreme position to take, but they are entitled to adopt that position if they really, really want to.
The mental gymnastics going on in this thread to try to avoid saying “you know what, it has changed. And Paizo has no intent of ever modelling the fact it has changed in an IC way” are simply absurd.
It has changed. I expect 99.99999% of us will not make it a plot point in our games or even acknowledge it in any IC way. And our games will still be enjoyable. If someone wants to insist it must be explained ICly then they are welcome to do so at their table.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have any examples of lore that suggests this is true?
Do you have any that contradict it?
Because I remember plenty of examples from both novels and rulebooks and none of them seemed to indicate that the abilities Paladins had were completely predictable and identical for all Paladins.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many PC wizards must a wizard meet before he realises there is a standard range of 6th level spells that 99.9999% of all wizards fall into?
I have never, in any game, had PCs actually run an NPC out of spells. Nor had them bother to do IC comparisons of spell slots. I could've added or subtracted slots pretty much at will and they never would've noticed.
So they'd need to do one of those things, and those things simply don't happen, IME. Certainly not often enough for them to establish an IC pattern of knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i feel like mentioning that necromancer isn't a class, but people probably get called necromancers. even if people call sorcerers sorcerers, that doesn't really mean they're calling them that because of their class, just their magical origin.
it's entirely possible for someone to call themselves by their class name, but that doesn't necessarily mean they did it for the right reasons, and it's entirely possible and likely that the majority of people will call you incorrectly, and that other people who share your class will not think you should be called the same sort of adventurer.
with multiclassing this becomes even harder, since you could have cultures that mix bard, wizard and druid professions into one big shaman school and people all just focus on various parts of it.
Do you have any examples of lore that suggests this is true?Do you have any that contradict it?
Because I remember plenty of examples from both novels and rulebooks and none of them seemed to indicate that the abilities Paladins had were completely predictable and identical for all Paladins.
I don't have to provide evidence that you are wrong, you have to provide evidence that you are right. Because I don't remember so much as a single hint that that is true. Plus if you remember so many examples than surely you can provide one?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i feel like mentioning that necromancer isn't a class, but people probably get called necromancers. even if people call sorcerers sorcerers, that doesn't really mean they're calling them that because of their class, just their magical origin.
This is absolutely true, and if you read the Pathfinder Tales many people do, in fact, get misdiagnosed. But when a magical expert (which Varian Jeggare is) straight up says 'Dragons have inborn magic like Sorcerers, not magic from study like Wizards' that means that those terms do mean the same thing IC, at least among those who know what they're talking about, some people just misuse them.
I don't have to provide evidence that you are wrong, you have to provide evidence that you are right.
No, I don't. You're the one making absolute statements here (ie: Golarion can't make sense without this being a retcon. It must inherently be an in-universe change), while I'm just noting reasons that need not necessarily be true. The burden of proof is on you.
Because I don't remember so much as a single hint that that is true. Plus if you remember so many examples than surely you can provide one?
I remember examples of Paladins, and don't remember people immediately knowing what their powers were (beyond the very basic 'some healing'). I do not remember any specifically varying in powers in a notable fashion, and I'm sorry if my last post implied I did.
My intent was to note that people didn't seem to know what Paladins did exactly on a mechanical level, meaning there could be variation, not that there was extensive textual evidence for variation beyond that.
And I can find evidence of people not being familiar with Paladin abilities if you like, but it seems superfluous since I think we both agree they're not common knowledge.
i feel like mentioning that necromancer isn't a class, but people probably get called necromancers. even if people call sorcerers sorcerers, that doesn't really mean they're calling them that because of their class, just their magical origin.This is absolutely true, and if you read the Pathfinder Tales many people do, in fact, get misdiagnosed. But when a magical expert (which Varian Jeggare is) straight up says 'Dragons have inborn magic like Sorcerers, not magic from study like Wizards' that means that those terms do mean the same thing IC, at least among those who know what they're talking about, some people just misuse them.
right, but we're asking if people inherently know their own class, not whether specific classes have observable differences. we're asking if it makes sense for classes to get together and intuitively know if other individuals are their class based upon their class mechanics.
whether a fighter can be discerned from a barbarian, or not. does a paladin champion know they're the same class as a liberator champion.
No, I don't. You're the one making absolute statements here (ie: Golarion can't make sense without this being a retcon. It must inherently be an in-universe change), while I'm just noting reasons that need not necessarily be true. The burden of proof is on you.
And I have provided that proof. Spellcasters know how many spells they have, as we have establish. Characters have the ability to count. Nothing in the mechanics or lore suggests that Paladins have 1d6 lay on hands a day. This means Paladins can cast their lay on hands and count. If they don't have variable castings, then they are, in universe, aware of how many times they can cast. In 2E, the amount of times they can cast in a row is dramatically different. This represents a change that characters, in universe, could observe and record. However, the official explanation is that nothing changed. This means that the old lore has been overwritten by the new lore, and thus continuity doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what happened before, it matters what is happening now.
And I can find evidence of people not being familiar with Paladin abilities if you like, but it seems superfluous since I think we both agree they're not common knowledge.
I don't need evidence of a character failing a knowledge check, nor is my argument that everyone knows how Paladins work, but that Paladins know how Paladins work. I need examples of Paladins who have variable castings of Lay on Hands a day. Because otherwise they have a set number, and they can count that number. Note that I bring up the variable castings because of people's assertions that 1E Paladin's couldn't know how many uses of lay on hands they have.
whether a fighter can be discerned from a barbarian, or not. does a paladin champion know they're the same class as a liberator champion.
I mean martial artists have the ability to tell where someone got their training based on observing fights. Is telling the difference between a fighter and a barbarian different than telling the difference between Sambo and Taekwondo? Is telling the difference between a Paladin Champion from a Liberator Champion different than telling the difference between a French boxer and an English boxer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
whether a fighter can be discerned from a barbarian, or not. does a paladin champion know they're the same class as a liberator champion.I mean martial artists have the ability to tell where someone got their training based on observing fights. Is telling the difference between a fighter and a barbarian different than telling the difference between Sambo and Taekwondo? Is telling the difference between a Paladin Champion from a Liberator Champion different than telling the difference between a French boxer and an English boxer?
a fighter can be self taught, a samurai, a guy who's just really good with an axe, a follower of the treatises of Greatswords from where ever. you tell me a barbarian can't also be a follower of the treatises of greatswords from where ever, but slightly less skilled but more naturally talented at swinging a sword to deal damage.
I don't think they necessarily know anything other than they apply their taught fighting styles in different ways. I don't think anyone would go, "oh that guy, he's following the treatises but he's obviously a barbarian"
I mean the reality is most of that is fluff and doesn't really address the fact that people can tell the difference between different styles of combat. I can just as easily counter with:
"He is a skilled warrior and may follow the treatises but his foot movements are all wrong. I don't know where he got his treatises training but it wasn't in Varisia. Plus, any self respecting greatsword treatise school would have beaten those anger issues out of him."
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a fighter can be self taught, a samurai, a guy who's just really good with an axe, a follower of the treatises of Greatswords from where ever. you tell me a barbarian can't also be a follower of the treatises of greatswords from where ever, but slightly less skilled but more naturally talented at swinging a sword to deal damage.
I don't think they necessarily know anything other than they apply their taught fighting styles in different ways. I don't think anyone would go, "oh that guy, he's following the treatises but he's obviously a barbarian"
Exactly what is or is not immersion-breaking will vary from group to group.
I mean the reality is most of that is fluff and doesn't really address the fact that people can tell the difference between different styles of combat. I can just as easily counter with:
"He is a skilled warrior and may follow the treatises but his foot movements are all wrong. I don't know where he got his treatises training but it wasn't in Varisia. Plus, any self respecting greatsword treatise school would have beaten those anger issues out of him."
sure, and so long as you agree that they won't then asert they're a "barbarian", then we're in agreement. the only thing i think is unfounded, is whether or not a barbarian or others would group other barbarians together even though they have diverse cultural backgrounds and each class has fairly decent overlap in what you could consider their training versus their abilities.
sure, and so long as you agree that they won't then asert they're a "barbarian", then we're in agreement. the only thing i think is unfounded, is whether or not a barbarian or others would group other barbarians together even though they have diverse cultural backgrounds and each class has fairly decent overlap in what you could consider their training versus their abilities.I mean the reality is most of that is fluff and doesn't really address the fact that people can tell the difference between different styles of combat. I can just as easily counter with:
"He is a skilled warrior and may follow the treatises but his foot movements are all wrong. I don't know where he got his treatises training but it wasn't in Varisia. Plus, any self respecting greatsword treatise school would have beaten those anger issues out of him."
I mean, there is no reason why they couldn't. Again, people can tell the difference between different kinds of boxers. You'll find most martial arts will feature a decent amount of overlap as well. To think people couldn't tell the difference between classes or combat styles is silly. A high enough Perception or Lore check could not only tell their class and feats, but where in the inner sea they got their training.
The Barbarian my fight similarly to the fighter, but if he fought exactly the same he would be the same class/build. Yeah it's more difficult than some other class comparisons, but that is a difference in check DC, not of possibility.
Let's have two students from the same school, one a fighter and one a barbarian. The fighter dutifully follows his training, practicing his skills to a razors edge. The Barbarian is a natural warrior, but doesn't apply himself as fully and is prone to brute forcing his way through. Now do you think the school master can't tell the difference between these two students?
This is just an example and there are plenty of ways to fluff this. Also just because the master can tell the two apart doesn't mean a lv 5 fighter from another school could determine the class difference. And a lv 20 investigator might be able to tell classes, the home villages, and age each student first picked up a blade.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The same thing happens with the term Eskimo or Native American.
Just noting that Eskimo is a fraught term that has at times been a contributing factor in cultural erasure and general ignorance. So sometimes broad catch-all terms are actively bad and unhelpful. Eskimo in particular tends to be best used by those who personally identify as such.
Growing up, occasionally I'd tell someone from out of state that I was Tlingit, and they'd ask what that meant, I'd explain it was a tribal ethnicity in Alaska, and they'd go "Oh, so you're Eskimo?" Or on the other side watching a friend try to explain that they're Inuit, not Eskimo, and having someone reply with "But they're basically all the same, right?"
If you're going to use it as an example just be aware that the actual execution of that in-world would basically be-
"Hi, I'm Jameson, a druid of Gozreh."
"Oh, so you're one of those magicians, like the priest down at the church or ol' Merdalf in his tower."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there is no reason why they couldn't.sure, and so long as you agree that they won't then asert they're a "barbarian", then we're in agreement. the only thing i think is unfounded, is whether or not a barbarian or others would group other barbarians together even though they have diverse cultural backgrounds and each class has fairly decent overlap in what you could consider their training versus their abilities.I mean the reality is most of that is fluff and doesn't really address the fact that people can tell the difference between different styles of combat. I can just as easily counter with:
"He is a skilled warrior and may follow the treatises but his foot movements are all wrong. I don't know where he got his treatises training but it wasn't in Varisia. Plus, any self respecting greatsword treatise school would have beaten those anger issues out of him."
right but could they tell that a specific boxer and a specific greatsword user, are both actually fury barbarians?
i don't mind so much saying they fight differently, it's when you then go, but *they* fight the same. even though both the fighter and barbarian would likely be still be called followers of the treatises.