Should PCs be able to learn new game mechanics, such as spells, through observation alone?
For example, a wizard witnesses an enemy caster using sudden bolt on an ally, or perhaps is targeted by it himself. He observes the enemy caster's hand motions, hears their incantation, sees an unnatural cloud form overhead, feels the gathering charge as his arm hairs stand on end, then endures the lightning.
Could he later look back on that experience and add the spell to his spellbook (making all the necessary checks and spending the appropriate time and resources for Learn A Spell as normal)?
Would it make any difference (perhaps in the form of a higher check DC?) if he only saw the spell effects and not the components (such as with permanent spell effect he finds in place long after it was cast)? Would it make any difference if the enemy caster he witnessed was a druid using primal magic rather than a sorcerer using arcane? What if it were a Rare or Unique spell, instead of an Uncommon one?
Or is mere observation not enough, and the player needs to have his character diminished by needing the GM need to say "here's a step by step scroll," or "here's a mentor to teach you" or something similarly condescending?
Same for gear or magic items. Could a PC learn the formula with enough interaction with a given object or magic item? (Again, not bypassing the neccessary time and resource components).
Same for a fighter who witnesses or experiences an enemy using an uncommon feat (once, more than once?).
This goes into the realm of homebrew rules, but I might allow for characters to attempt to learn it if they have the recognize spell feat and get a critical success to identify it.
This would all be homebrew, but I could see:
For items we have the Inventor feat (level 7 feat, master in craft, create the formula for any common items) as a baseline. I could see a related feat that applies to uncommon (maybe rare) items as well as long a you have an example in front of you for the entire time period -- ie you could just dissemble it to learn in that case. However a feat to make it so that you don't disassemble it but still learn the formula could be balanced. Again requiring master proficiency, and taking some form of adjustment (either higher DC (already higher since uncommon/rate), daily progress is 1/2d, or base cost of the formula is 2-3x higher) -- all reflecting the trial and error/multiple attempts at copying it,etc.
Similarly I could see the design space for a spell related feat. Again probably about level 7, requires Master & recognize spell. for a spell you've recognized, you can attempt the learn the spell activity as a downtime activity w/o having the spell in front of you, taking 1 day per level of the spell. Cost is double the the prices from table 4-3. Degree of success as follows:
Critical success: You learn in 1/2 the time.
Success: You learn the spell
Fail: You fail to learn the spell, spend 1/2 the resources, and can't try again until your recognize it again.
Critical Fail: As fail, but you spend all the resources.
I was a little tempted to make the degrees of success all one worse for the player and have a critical success on the identify cancel out that penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should PCs be able to learn new game mechanics, such as spells, through observation alone?
For example, a wizard witnesses an enemy caster using sudden bolt on an ally, or perhaps is targeted by it himself. He observes the enemy caster's hand motions, hears their incantation, sees an unnatural cloud form overhead, feels the gathering charge as his arm hairs stand on end, then endures the lightning.
Could he later look back on that experience and add the spell to his spellbook (making all the necessary checks and spending the appropriate time and resources for Learn A Spell as normal)?
Would it make any difference (perhaps in the form of a higher check DC?) if he only saw the spell effects and not the components (such as with permanent spell effect he finds in place long after it was cast)? Would it make any difference if the enemy caster he witnessed was a druid using primal magic rather than a sorcerer using arcane? What if it were a Rare or Unique spell, instead of an Uncommon one?
Or is mere observation not enough, and the player needs to have his character diminished by needing the GM need to say "here's a step by step scroll," or "here's a mentor to teach you" or something similarly condescending?
Same for gear or magic items. Could a PC learn the formula with enough interaction with a given object or magic item? (Again, not bypassing the neccessary time and resource components).
Same for a fighter who witnesses or experiences an enemy using an uncommon feat (once, more than once?).
I think it's actually more condescending to everyone else to think that a character can witness an incredibly complicated thing one time and then replicate it.
Nobody watches Bobby Fischer play Chess, or Michael Jordan play basketball, and then just goes and does it equally well.
Casting Spells and Crafting objects are inherently complicated tasks.
Not to mention that it steps on potential design space for something like a Blue Mage, or some kind of Feat or Item that gives you a Sharingan type ability.
So all PF2E characters are basically robots who can't do anything unless you feed them their punch cards? Doesn't sound like what I'm looking for in a roleplaying game. Besides, I thought we were playing fantasy heroes, not everyday lemons.
I'm not trying to break existing rules, or make up new rules, I just want to know if this can be done--even if only conceptually--in the current system.
For example, a player character observes an enemy using an unknown spell several times during an encounter. After the encounter the player tells the GM he'd like to learn that spell, having seen it several times and even having experienced being on the receiving end of it. Since the spell is on the character's spell list, but is uncommon, the GM agrees, and has the character use the Learn A Spell Activity to represent the character doing research and filling in the gaps in his knowledge/observations. Next time they are in town, the character hits up the local library, speaks to experts, goes over his personal notes of the encounter, buys testing components, etc. This takes several hours, uses up financial resources, and will require a skill check at the end to see if the spell is learned or if any materials are expended or wasted (all as per Learn A Spell).
(Frankly, I'm not sure why this is an Exploration activity rather than a Downtime activity. You can't talk to anyone or buy the required resources if you're in a dungeon. Or can you buy generic resources for this task, and put them towards any spell?)
Are you really telling me that, unless I torture the spell out of the enemy, or capture a scroll or spellbook of it (not likely for a non-wizard foe), than I'm just out of luck?
That one character can never teach another character how to make anything, unless they produced a physical copy of a formula? (Must be great for illiterate characters.)
I call b**+&!$s on all of that.
By the rules as written no. But one of the huge upsides to 2E is how easy it is for GM's to just quickly arbitrate rules with simple DC's based on level.
If it were my own game I would allow a Wizard to use downtime to research the spell. Maybe not giving it to them outright as Arcane magic by its very name is arcane(secret). So with proper downtime they may learn or a wizard who knows it and can teach them or of a library that may contain it or a ruin of a wizard tower where it is believed the spell was first made. Like many abstractions in 2E the answer is simply ask you GM.
By the rules as written no.
What? Why not? I literally went step by step by the rules in my example.
CHECK! (This is why I had to go back to town to talk to people, peruse libraries, and do all that research.)
CHECK! (Another reason for returning to town.)
CHECK!
And most importantly, ask the GM. CHECK! DOUBLE CHECK!
What rule did I break exactly?
And if this doesn't work, then how does anyone possibly learn anything new in Pathfinder? Observation and experimentation are the cornerstones of learning new things!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No you didn't go rules as written.
You saw a spell cast and wanted to learn it.
You went back to town and talked to people and magic. There wasn't someone who knew the spell/had the scroll/had it in their spellbook.
You fail at your first 'check'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should PCs be able to learn new game mechanics, such as spells, through observation alone?
For example, a wizard witnesses an enemy caster using sudden bolt on an ally, or perhaps is targeted by it himself. He observes the enemy caster's hand motions, hears their incantation, sees an unnatural cloud form overhead, feels the gathering charge as his arm hairs stand on end, then endures the lightning.
Could he later look back on that experience and add the spell to his spellbook (making all the necessary checks and spending the appropriate time and resources for Learn A Spell as normal)?
Would it make any difference (perhaps in the form of a higher check DC?) if he only saw the spell effects and not the components (such as with permanent spell effect he finds in place long after it was cast)? Would it make any difference if the enemy caster he witnessed was a druid using primal magic rather than a sorcerer using arcane? What if it were a Rare or Unique spell, instead of an Uncommon one?
Or is mere observation not enough, and the player needs to have his character diminished by needing the GM need to say "here's a step by step scroll," or "here's a mentor to teach you" or something similarly condescending?
Same for gear or magic items. Could a PC learn the formula with enough interaction with a given object or magic item? (Again, not bypassing the neccessary time and resource components).
Same for a fighter who witnesses or experiences an enemy using an uncommon feat (once, more than once?).
For me the answer is no, but I don't think it's condescending to say so.
You must train or be trained or study to learn a spell or new feat, though this is something that's assumed to happen in the character's down time/exploration time.
I also want to expand and say from just having it happen to you once once or seen once, is a definite no. But if you sat and watched an array of spell casters cast a specific spell repeatedly for an extended period of time, then I might allow you to gain the knowledge, of course that's basically just training.
In general though, I think learning a new spell is not something you do during the middle of combat. But seeing a spell you don't know might motivate your character to figure out how to cast a spell and that could end up with spell research, though currently there are no rules for researching a spell. Or seeking out someone to train you.
However, it leaves room for an NPC to use an uncommon or rare spell and have a PC not be able to recreate it, which I think is appropriate. No more instances of every wizard using blood money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules as written no.What? Why not? I literally went step by step by the rules in my example.
CHECK! (This is why I had to go back to town to talk to people, peruse libraries, and do all that research.)
At no point did the character remain in conversation with someone who knows the spell, nor did they have it in magical writing, so they can't learn the spell RAW. If they did have either of those things, then they wouldn't have needed to have seen it cast to learn it, so seeing a spell cast has no impact on if a character can learn it or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me at least, that "moment of inspiration" is what the level-up is. When a Wizard levels up, they select a few new spells known, and learn them instantaneously. These spells are the product of these kinds of moments, the accumulated experience of the character if you will.
No you didn't go rules as written.
You saw a spell cast and wanted to learn it.
You went back to town and talked to people and magic. There wasn't someone who knew the spell/had the scroll/had it in their spellbook.
You fail at your first 'check'.
Well, sorry. I thought it was VERY HEAVILY implied that I was going to town to talk to people who knew about the spell, or to find it in an old tome in a library or some such.
In any case, that's not something I can control anyways. It's up to the GM to decide if such people or resources are available.
At no point did the character remain in conversation with someone who knows the spell, nor did they have it in magical writing, so they can't learn the spell RAW. If they did have either of those things, then they wouldn't have needed to have seen it cast to learn it, so seeing a spell cast has no impact on if a character can learn it or not.
Well I did say "conceptually" would be an option, meaning there would be no broken rules or mechanical impact.
To me at least, that "moment of inspiration" is what the level-up is. When a Wizard levels up, they select a few new spells known, and learn them instantaneously. These spells are the product of these kinds of moments, the accumulated experience of the character if you will.
Unless it's an uncommon spell of course. Then it's off limits unless the GM breaks the rules and says you can just have it, or you go through the whole ridiculous dog and pony show and jump through all the ridiculous hoops.
Personally, I don't think people should be able to simply see a spell and *LIGHTBULB!* it into their spellbook. But witnessing it or being exposed to it AND spending time and money to research it AND needing to make a check to see if you even succeed SHOULD be more than enough justification.
The fact that a character MUST have an NPC or a written source just s~$!s over all kinds of fun concepts and roleplaying opportunities.
I think that's a fine thing to do for a homebrew rule, in fact I allow players to make entirely new spells in downtime that we homebrew together. But it's also a thing I think should stay out of the rules as written, because sometimes a GM will want to include something but have it only belong to an NPC
No you didn't go rules as written.
You saw a spell cast and wanted to learn it.
You went back to town and talked to people and magic. There wasn't someone who knew the spell/had the scroll/had it in their spellbook.
You fail at your first 'check'.
Well, sorry. I thought it was VERY HEAVILY implied that I was going to town to talk to people who knew about the spell, or to find it in an old tome in a library or some such.
In any case, that's not something I can control anyways. It's up to the GM to decide if such people or resources are available.
Then you are using the normal learn a spell rules; there's already provisions for uncommon/rare spells there (higher DCs). The fact that you saw the spell used has no bearing mechanically on learning it. So I'm not sure what's your goal/point?
Yeah, this is just the normal rules. Not sure what you're going for.
I just wanted advice on different ways it could be handled. Hence, why it's in the Advice forum and not the Rules forum. But people keep saying "no, the rules don't allow for it," which isn't exactly helpful.
I'm also sick and tired of PF2E GMs telling me "No" all the time on small asks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You started out asking "Should PCs be able to learn new game mechanics, such as spells, through observation alone?"
That's very different from can my character be inspired from seeing a spell cast, to do the usual way of learning a spell?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted advice on different ways it could be handled. Hence, why it's in the Advice forum and not the Rules forum. But people keep saying "no, the rules don't allow for it," which isn't exactly helpful.
I'm also sick and tired of PF2E GMs telling me "No" all the time on small asks.
You have a lot of threads complaining about GMs telling you 'no'. If this example is typical, you should consider rethinking how you ask your questions to GMs. Make sure your understand what you're asking, and what you want out of the GMs. Are you asking a rules question, are you asking a 'reskinning/reflavoring' the rules question, or are you asking for help with cooperative storytelling?
I can easily see a question feeling to you like the last, while feeling to the GM like the first type of question. A rules question tends to get a mechanical answer.
Now if you're instead saying 'Hey I saw that cool spell that XYZ used, I'd like to learn it via Learn a Spell, but need a source, can something be worked into the story? This feels important to the character, so I'd to avoid outright copying from a spellbook, and instead flavor it as research and interacting with some new NPCs or arcane locations', I think you'd get better answers (at least outside of PFS play); sure you might still need to pay some gp to the npc or the library, or do a (should be small) side task/quest for them. But you get the resulting narrative you wanted.
Thanks NielsenE. You might be right about that.
Imo no.
It invalidates both progression and balance.
Could you please elaborate on why you feel this is so?
I think what seeing a spell like Sudden Bolt cast tells a PC is that the spell exists. If the GM wants to suggest that your PC has no idea that such a spell exists, the player can reasonably reply, "Then what was it that that enemy wizard cast at me? I want to figure out how to do that."
Actually learning the spell could involve many more steps, especially if the spell in question is not common.
Doesn't this go both ways though?
The system inherently allows our characters to learn things regardless of what they see. Not every DM is gonna set up medical crisis so someone can see and learn Ward Medic skill feat, or for that matter, how would a rogue see and learn legendary sneak?
It sounds like you're applying the realism of watch and learn to a setting controlled by gamey rulesets. There's a few feats that represent what you refer, like that combat feat that lets you use one of 3 combat feats a limited amount of times per day, that could be seen as pulling off moves you've seen but not mastered.
Learn a spell can fluffwise be a watch and learn scenario. The character saw the gist of the spell, and did research into how to do it. If we could mimic crafting any item by seeing it done at level 2, what's the point of Inventor?
Don't think it's the system's fault, it's pretty particular about what it does. The issue is wanting to mix a specific ruleset with the freedom of a freeform roleplay.
Meh, the APG makes it clear that you can't so much as scramble an egg without the cookbook on hand.
Lots of options there that let you toss the cookbook, but sadly, they are the exception that proves the rule.
Meh, the APG makes it clear that you can't so much as scramble an egg without the cookbook on hand.
Lots of options there that let you toss the cookbook, but sadly, they are the exception that proves the rule.
I could be wrong but sounds like system burn out sort of thing. There's a lot of watch and learn scenarios possible, but it sounds like you're after mechanical gains in a different way than the system is built around, something more akin to variant/homebrew rules.
Almost every skill lets us reflavour things based on what we see. A bartender background could watch and learn and produce ales based on the ones he's experienced throughout his journeys, an acrobat or performer could probably learn from shows and festivals.
If it gets less gamey and more realistic, would that also call for the downsides of learning through observation? Can a fighter learn Intimidating strike if he never practiced using Intimidation?
Would medicine training set us years in downtime and in need of constant practice?
Not really burn out. It's just that the current mechanical requirement of needing a physical formula just doesn't really contribute to my suspension of disbelief very well. It's jarring even.
Needing a list of formulas I get. Needing to spend time and resources learning how to make something I get. But why can't that just be in the character's head? Why does it NEED to be a physical object in the game world (and on that is on hand, what's more)?
I think it would make a lot more conceptual sense if you needed a formula, which COULD be a physical object, but didn't have to be. The norm would be that you need time, resources, and perhaps a teacher to teach it to you. Otherwise you would need to spend feats and other character resources to reduce or forgo those things. I'm just really kind of surprised that's not the direction it took from the onset. It seems much more logical and intuitive to me.
Not really burn out. It's just that the current mechanical requirement of needing a physical formula just doesn't really contribute to my suspension of disbelief very well. It's jarring even.
Needing a list of formulas I get. Needing to spend time and resources learning how to make something I get. But why can't that just be in the character's head? Why does it NEED to be a physical object in the game world (and on that is on hand, what's more)?
I think it would make a lot more conceptual sense if you needed a formula, which COULD be a physical object, but didn't have to be. The norm would be that you need time, resources, and perhaps a teacher to teach it to you. Otherwise you would need to spend feats and other character resources to reduce or forgo those things. I'm just really kind of surprised that's not the direction it took from the onset. It seems much more logical and intuitive to me.
It could be because of the streamlining process? Everything's a bit more digestible than before, probably to attract new players like 5e did, least that's my guess. For a more narrative freeform system, I personally like Monte Cook's cypher system, it's a little odd a times, but it's a lot more open at the same time.
I might have misread your example, but wouldn't Magical Shorthand skill feat allow a wizard to study up new spells by using a skill like Arcane? Or is the key issue that Learn a Spell says you need access to someone who knows the spell or the writing?
I think the reason you need a formula is so that a GM can't say "but do I actually know how to make X." You could always say you know how based on your backstory. Having a formula book just gives you a concrete way to say you have it on your character sheet.
That's why all simple level 0 items are included in a five silver crafting book. It is just a simple abstraction to document you can do the thing. In practice it should never actually matter if you can do a thing from a formula or from memory.
Edit: also, you seem to be conflating learning a spell and building an item for reasons I can't really grok. The two feel distinct enough to warrant separate conversations.
I think I'd break down my answers roughly as follows:
RULES ANSWER: "Can a character develop a spell from having seen it used?"
No, not by any means in the rules.
ADVICE ANSWER: "Would you allow a character to try to reverse engineer a spell over downtime after having seen it used?"
Maybe. A particular spell might be too powerful, too unsuited to the character, a thing that I want to keep restricted in that particular campaign, etc. But if there weren't any of the possible reasons to prevent it, then there isn't much reason not to work outside of the written systems a bit. It would take time and expense, still, and not be a way out if expenses normally associated with acquiring a spell. Maybe even a side quest hook, if appropriate (not actually all that different from what you might do with someone trying to find a teacher for an uncommon spell).
ADVICE ANSWER: "Do the rules need to say that 'you can develop spells on your own, and here's the system?" No. It's easy enough to do in your campaign if you want it to be an option, and leaving it to campaign variation keeps it from turning into a mess of rarity-circumvention attempts.
Not really burn out. It's just that the current mechanical requirement of needing a physical formula just doesn't really contribute to my suspension of disbelief very well. It's jarring even.
Needing a list of formulas I get. Needing to spend time and resources learning how to make something I get. But why can't that just be in the character's head? Why does it NEED to be a physical object in the game world (and on that is on hand, what's more)?
I think it would make a lot more conceptual sense if you needed a formula, which COULD be a physical object, but didn't have to be. The norm would be that you need time, resources, and perhaps a teacher to teach it to you. Otherwise you would need to spend feats and other character resources to reduce or forgo those things. I'm just really kind of surprised that's not the direction it took from the onset. It seems much more logical and intuitive to me.
This is where re-skinning comes into play. Mechanically you need access to the formula for crafting an item. Mechanically you need magical writing (or a tutor) in order to learn a spell. But that doesn't mean that in-game you actually need a physical object. I don't think I would go so far as to say that watching an opponent cast a spell would be sufficient for you to learn the spell yourself. But I don't think there is any requirement for a physical in-game object either.
But I don't think there is any requirement for a physical in-game object either.
APG has feats that allow you to know formulas without the in-game object, so the default RAW is that you DO need an in-game object.
But I don't think there is any requirement for a physical in-game object either.APG has feats that allow you to know formulas without the in-game object, so the default RAW is that you DO need an in-game object.
How often does that come up in actual play? The scenarios where you would be deprived your formula book are vanishingly small. We are talking like "get arranged on a desert island with none of your stuff," and that creates much bigger problems than crafting that will probably need to be addressed with house rules or concessions.
You're not the first person to bring this up, but this specific rules quirk is so inconsequential that it might as well not exist and it frankly isn't worth the ink it would take to "patch." If ever there was a mountain out of a molehill...
But I don't think there is any requirement for a physical in-game object either.APG has feats that allow you to know formulas without the in-game object, so the default RAW is that you DO need an in-game object.
I haven't seen the actual text of these feats, so I can't actually say much.
But my general thoughts on the requirement of the formula for crafting is so that you can't have your characters being able to automatically gain access to anything that the GM uses against the party. Similar for the requirements on learning spells. Yes, the enemy can cast Force Missile on you without you automatically being able to learn the spell yourself. Or even an unnamed spell that the GM created for the custom enemy creature. You don't automatically get access to that just because you saw it.
So however you want to skin it, there is still the requirement to have something that can fill the mechanical role of the formula in order for you to learn the crafting or spell learning. The feats in the APG may relax the mechanics of what you need to have. I expect that it is still possible to theme the mechanics such that no in-game object for the formula is actually needed while still following RAW.
But again, I can't really say much without being able to see the actual rules. So until those become publicly available, I will have to postpone anything more on this.
So looking through the crafting feats after the APG is available, I am still not seeing anything that indicates that a character's "forumla book" has to be a physical object - especially not an actual textbook.
A Witch uses their familiar as their "formula book".
Also, the Inventor feat does approximately what you are wanting - though only for crafting items, not learning spells; and only for common items. So that protects the GM from having the players poach anything that they throw at the players.