| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings,
I've looked high and low for an answer. Now I am here.
If you were to take a look in the NPC Codex at the stat blocks of, for example, a couple of Illusionist NPCs, specifically, Prankster Illusionist (p.185) and/or Black Ice (p.238), you would find in one or two of their Spells a single digit instead of the DC, or in addition to the DC. For instance, with Prankster Illusionist, look at color spray:
1st -- color spray (2, DC 17)
While in Black Ice, you'll see:
2nd -- invisibility (2) and
1st -- magic missile (2)
Can someone tell me what those digits signify? Both by themselves, and with the DC?
Thanks!
- s.west
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes they list it as (DC 15, 2) to mean it's DC is 15 and they prepared 2 castings of it. Just my cantrip (2).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, thanks for those answers.
Can you tell me where Paizo defines the syntax of their stat blocks? Most of it, of course, is self-evident, but there are a couple of things (like this one) that aren't obvious.
In other words: How did you two know the meaning of that '2'?
Thanks, again!
- s.west
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Introduction section of each Bestiary does provide a definition for the various sections of the stat block. However, it does not call out the # spells specifically.
In the end, I just assumed that the "2" indicated there was 2 castings of that spell available. You'll only see that with Prepared Spells. Known Spells and Spell-Like Abilities will only list the spells as the creature/character would be able to cast any of those spells up to their daily limit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ckdragons, thanks for the response. And thanks for your candor about your own assumption on this.
However, why in the world would this be left undefined by Paizo? I don't get that, at all.
Cheers,
- s.west
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ckdragons, thanks for the response. And thanks for your candor about your own assumption on this.
However, why in the world would this be left undefined by Paizo? I don't get that, at all.
Cheers,
- s.west
Because (from Paizo's perspective) there's almost never a reason to define it.
I totally agree that, for someone who's never been exposed to that format it can be confusing^, but many can figure it out from context (that nomenclature and format never appears unless a creature has prepared spells) and it's the same format that has been used since any of the d20 systems have been used and possibly before. Effectively the culture is so well-ingrained many just simply see it, know what it means and move on. There very likely seems to be no particular need to define it. Especially when combined with their constant battle against space and how much time they take to publish and rush through the things they already have to deal with.
There are many things in both rules and design philosophy that Paizo takes as presumptions and otherwise makes assumptions about. This is true for the styles of games people will use their system to play () and the types of "common sense" () expected to be meted out by any given individual.
Basically, I think they leave it undefined because without realizing they go, "who could ever be confused by this?" (because they could not be confused by this) and thus they don't perceive it as a need (or if they ever did, they presumed it was such a small number of people that it wouldn't be helpful for space reasons - there are more "important" things in their estimation to spend it on, like monster stat blocks or another item description or new feat or whatever).
It really does make sense, even if it seems baffling for those not well versed in the concept.
^
EDIT: for hopeful clarity :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticslion
No worries about the tone. And I get the point you're making
Thanks for responding.
- s.west