Can a superstition Barbarian still cast spells that dont target themself? The anathema mentions "accepting the effects" of spells on themself and lists a few other things that they cant do but it doesn't say you cant force effects on others, so is it fine for them to do so?
(My barbarian has the champion dedication and occasionally doles out furious magical judgement on others, while he views others doing anything similar to him as abhorrent. Thats how we've been playing it so far but we've recently found out we've been ruling a few things wrong so I wanted to check we were doing this right and he was still ok to cast at enemies.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That certainly doesn't seem intended, looking at the flavor text.
Also, it doesn't say "accepting the effects" of spells on themself. It says "accepting the effects of spells." Casting a spell to at targets others is accepting the spells effects on others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully disagree. RAW is clear: You can't cast spells on yourself but you can cast spells on others. And I see no reason to change that.
Stating that "accepting the effects of spells" doesn't mean "accepting the effects of spells on yourself" would force you to abandon any companion that does cast spells making the instinct unplayable in a party, so I'm pretty sure we are far away from intention.
About flavor, there are multiple types of Superstition Barbarians, it's even written in the flavor text: The warrior in constant battle against wizards and witches, the scion of a bloodline resistant to magic. And as you use magic items and drink potions, it's obvious that you accept magic up to a certain limit.
My Superstition Barbarian is a mage killer. It'll end up with Legendary Religion, Occultism and Arcana, with high Intelligence and will definitely end up with Magus Dedication. I don't see any issue with that, knowing how to fight magic is a good way to learn magic.
Still, Rage is hardly compatible with spellcasting, so a Superstition Barbarian will rarely be a strong spellcaster when raging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see anything explicitly saying "you can cast spells on others" ( and the exceptions mentioned within the rules are ONLY towards magic items. No spellcasting mentioned ).
You don't need. If nothing forbids you to cast spell on others you are allowed by default.
was enough to point out that wasn't meant to be used that way
To make a long story short:
Paizo: "Here we have this new barbarian instinct, which will allow players to play some sort of mage slayer. A character who, because of extreme superstition or some sort of magical incident, dedicated their own life fighting spellcasters. Being adversed to magic"
Players: "Though it stated it plenty of time in its description, it doesn't state it again within its mechanics. So I am allowed to go with a barbarian superstition instinct casting spells. Also, I am not willingly accepting a spellstrike, I am using it on enemies."
I disagree with your RAI.
There are tons of characters that the Superstition Instinct allows you to incarnate, not only superstitious barbarians that can't stand being next to magic.This is the best way to build a mage slayer, witch hunter, member of the pure legion, which are massive fantasies. Stating that Paizo thought that mage slayers should wait for another class to be released or should accept the few Fighter feats as sole abilities is not right. Paizo never made such a stance.
I guess we are back again to the old "Up to your group whether to interpret it one way or another".
There's no need for interpretation for the RAW. And for RAI, well, I don't see the point in forcing a player not to play a Superstition Barbarian that casts spells. If it was some kind of crazy optimization, I'd agree with you, but I hardly see how it can be one. It's actually not very interesting from an optimization standpoint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every class can be mage slayer, since the superstition instinct gives very little ( some flat resistance against Arcane and Prim... I meant to say, 2 out of 4 traditions ) and Mage Hunter ( AoO against a spell, regardless the components, which is strong but not even close to disruptive stance ).
Very little? +2 status bonus against spells, increased damage against spellcasters, 2 feats, the first one being bad but the second one being absolutely massive and a damage resistance against spells. What do you see that the Superstition Barbarian is lacking?
The Fighter in comparison gives absolutely nothing. Disruptive Stance and that's all (and level 10). And stating that the Ranger has anything against spellcaster is disingenuous. Yes, they can fight spellcasters, but they have nothing specific against them.
To me, it's twisting what the class is meant for.
I don't get it: At what point is it twisting the class? The fact that someone has a different fantasy around it? The fact that it's not the first fantasy that comes to mind when reading the class means that it shouldn't be playable?
I don't see why your fantasy should be better than mine.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hardly see any comparison between them.
I disagree again (I play one and I like it). Actually, the Superstition Barbarian being bad would be a good reason to be forgiving rulewise instead of limiting it more than what RAW states.
And considering that AoO is an antispellcaster ability is a bit of a stretch. It's a well rounded ability that also works against spellcasters, but it's by no mean an ability meant to be used against spellcasters specifically.
I dont agree with HumbleGamer at all because the rules text for the instinct doesnt support his/her concept of what the superstition barbarian is.
Regarding CaptainMorgan's interpretation based on the use of the word "accept":
We all read "Willingly accepting the effects of spells, even from your allies is anathema to your instinct" as you needing to resist any spells cast on you, as normally you get two options when a beneficial spell is cast on you: either choose to accept or resist the spell.
I dont think "accept" in this context means acknowledging that the spell will have an effect on others. Because if it did that would mean a superstition barbarian would have to pretend fireballs cast by others won't hurt his allies, otherwise by your definition the barbarian would be "accepting" the effect of a spell.
Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells (including from scrolls, wands, and the like), even from your allies, is anathema to your instinct. You can still drink potions and invest and activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells. If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct.
Everything in that text is specifically about how magic affects the barbarian, so with the absence of rules even mentioning the ability to cast spells shouldn't that mean that it remains unchanged, working as normal?
(I dont think you should add rules inferred from what you think the superstition barbarian should be thematically, as others may have a different theme in mind and not even the flavor text for the instinct mentions a total inability to utilise spells)
Well, you switched the discussion.
I personally find the Superstition Barbarian to be a better antispellcaster than the Fighter. Not a better character, as the Superstition Instinct is not a strong one, but a very dangerous mage slayer.
First, you have better saves. +2 status bonus is awesome, and at high level you'll get Greater Juggernaut. On top of that you have way more hit points which are more important to resist spells than AC (and even damage resistance if you face the traditions you have chosen). So the Barbarian will have an extreme staying power in a magical battle when the Fighter will be washed away like any other character.
In terms of offensive ability against spellcasters, I agree that you are not incredible. Not bad but a Fighter should beat you, but it's kind of the Fighter thing to beat everyone in damage.
And then you have Sunder Spell. Sure, it comes online late, but it's a solution to every magically based problem. If all you have is a Maul every spell looks like a nail.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no mechanical prohibition on them using spells on others and honestly, enforcing that limitation is arbitrarily harsh and penalizing given that the bonuses they get are terrible from an offensive standpoint given than that it applies to, at best, half of the opponents they're ever going to fight.
The rules that govern what the anathema restricts in no way state that they cannot cast their own spells on others and even the flavor doesn't even strongly suggest that is the case. Thematically, I could see why people might think they should not be able to cast spells of their own but that isn't something that is actually addressed and therefore is allowed.
The text is clear that you distrust spellcasters and magic generally -- so using it yourself is almost certainly not intended, even if purely legalistic reading might allow it. This isn't a legalistic game as much as people in this thread and elsewhere want it to be.
If I may, I love your use of the text as written to dismiss a "legalistic" reading.
Your reading is clearly a hyper legalistic one as you ask not only to enforce rules but also to enforce fluff.At your table, would you allow a sorcerer to gain their power after birth, through exposition to magic or a divine intervention for example, even if the text is clear that you gain them at birth? What difference do you make with someone who wants their Superstition Barbarian to accept magic but to just be excellent at fighting it?
Edit: You can respond if you want, but I've said by piece and provided my opinion to the OP and don't particularly feel like arguing rules reading philosophy with you. It's pretty clear we value different approaches.
Well, I disliked seeing the arguments in favor of allowing it called "legalistic".
Even if they speak about rules, all my answers in this thread are coming from a flavor point of view.
To me, it's simple. Is this overpowered? Will it break the game? Is it in any way unbalanced?
Answer: not even remotely. If anything, it's likely to be somewhat understrength.
At that point, it's between you and your GM. If I was the GM in question... you'd have to make some pretty compelling arguments to have me accept it as plausible, but once I had accepted it as plausible and as something that could reasonably exist in the world, then sure. No problem.
I mean... people are allowed to hate themselves, you know? Nothing stops a skeleton player from going Champion and taking the Shining Oath. It's even long-term playable... as long as you don't meet anyone else like you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Passed this thread along to my GM and he's decided "it looks like we're already playing as intended and nobody has shown sufficient rules to say otherwise" (rough quote). So it looks like my angry witch-smiter gets to continue hunting down heretics with holy judgement.
Due to another thread clarifying archetype DCs my barbarian isn't quite as good at it these days, but that's fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text is clear that you distrust spellcasters and magic generally -- so using it yourself is almost certainly not intended, even if purely legalistic reading might allow it. This isn't a legalistic game as much as people in this thread and elsewhere want it to be.If I may, I love your use of the text as written to dismiss a "legalistic" reading.
Your reading is clearly a hyper legalistic one as you ask not only to enforce rules but also to enforce fluff.At your table, would you allow a sorcerer to gain their power after birth, through exposition to magic or a divine intervention for example, even if the text is clear that you gain them at birth? What difference do you make with someone who wants their Superstition Barbarian to accept magic but to just be excellent at fighting it?
Legalistic is not the same thing as restrictive. In the context of cavernshark's post it was indeed an accurate usage of the word, and actually shows that they agree with your interpretation of RAW, but in their opinion it is "almost certainly not intended", which is a claim about RAI.
I really think you're reading too much into their intentions and taking the counter opinions a little too personally on this one. All that cavernshark said was that the way they see it RAW says you can, but it seems to be against the concept of the anathema. This is a statement that can, of course, be disagreed with, but let's not pretend they were making any more definitive claims than the opposition or that the term "legalistic" was used in any way derogatorily, especially considering it wasn't even directed at anyone nor at a specific argument, even.
Also, flavor text isn't "fluff" for anathema. Anathema are the most loosey goosey parts of the rule and are very much something that should be discussed with a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't really agree with the above. In this forum "legalistic" is pretty much always used disparagingly and it's no different here. You even get the backhanded "as much as some people wish it were" line.
If a Superstitious Barbarian casts a spell, does that mean that they are willingly accepting that they are casting a spell (as well as all of the spells effects), and thus violating their anathema?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian Anathema are already subject to interpretation and should depend on how the character views their anathema.
Like one I've seen characters on both sides of is the spirit instinct, whether "liberating the earthly possessions of the recently deceased" is "disrespecting a corpse".
So some Superstition barbs should find it anathema to cast any spells at all, and some should be fine with it. Why you would choose the less powerful option for your own character is the subject of a great many roleplaying choices.
I really think you're reading too much into their intentions and taking the counter opinions a little too personally on this one.
I fully agree that I shouldn't have responded on a negative feeling. I also know how it's hard to keep it civil and respect the opposing point of view during a debate, our words can easily sound dismissing. On top of that, a lot of people here are not native english speakers and come from different cultures which is a perfect combination to grow misunderstandings.
And I also agree that I take it personally, as I play a Superstition Barbarian who will ultimately cast spells.
In fact, I quite like the concept of the Superstition Barbarian, but I really don't like the basic portrayal of the Barbarian who's affraid of a Light spell. And it participates in my opinion to the cliché of the stupid Barbarian: there are tons of classes without a drop of spellcasting but it's the Barbarian who's supposed to embody superstition.
On top of that, I don't like playing characters with no mental abilities. Your participation is mostly limited to combat and I don't feel like a hero when I have no way to help with the general story outside killing things. That's why I didn't want my Barbarian to be superstitious and end up with subpar mental stats.
To give more details about my Barbarian, he's a Rahadoumi follower of the Laws of Mortality, who entered the Pathfinder Society in search of fame and experience hoping to catch the attention of the Pure Legion and enter their ranks eventually. So he hates the divine, destroys hidden cults and will never accept any divine spell as "deific aid comes at too high a price". I think that the Superstition Barbarian is spot on for such a character. Still, he has no strong feelings against other forms of magic and because he learns a lot about magic ("know your enemy") I think it's logical for him to dabble in spellcasting at some point, as I find it normal for someone who'll end up Legendary in Arcana and Occultism to at least give it a try.
To play my Barbarian Anathema, I don't consider that he's affraid of magic, he just uses techniques to protect himself against magic and accepting spells break his mental and physical conditioning, forcing him to take a day to rebuild his defenses. As I play him in PFS, it allows me to also choose for a game to accept spells at the cost of my Instinct: I'm fully aware that a Superstition Barbarian can be a disruptive character, so I can choose to play it like a basic (but weak) martial.
Also, flavor text isn't "fluff" for anathema.
But I disagree on that. As long as a Superstition Barbarian doesn't accept spells and do his best to avoid being the target of beneficial spells, why would it be an issue if your character doesn't distrust magic? The mechanical effects are the same, after all.
Your reading is clearly a hyper legalistic one as you ask not only to enforce rules but also to enforce fluff.
Just wanted to pass the word that we've had a designer specifically request that we not use the word "fluff" to describe flavor/lore/story stuff on this board. Sadly, I'm terrible with names and cannot recall to tell you who, but I have seen the post in question myself. Perhaps someone else could help with the link?
Your reading is clearly a hyper legalistic one as you ask not only to enforce rules but also to enforce fluff.Just wanted to pass the word that we've had a designer specifically request that we not use the word "fluff" to describe flavor/lore/story stuff on this board. Sadly, I'm terrible with names and cannot recall to tell you who, but I have seen the post in question myself. Perhaps someone else could help with the link?
No problem. You actually made me check the meaning of fluff and... I don't know why people call that fluff. I always considered it was a synonym of flavor/lore.
But I still don't know how to call it. Because it's neither lore nor story, and flavor doesn't catch me as the proper word, too.
I would caution that the people whose website this is are on record as considering "fluff" pejorative and dismissive of a huge amount of effort that goes into what they do, so a different word (flavor, thematics, lore, etc.) is preferred.
This game has a large amount of interpretation, and is explicitly in Natural Language. Dismissing any part of the published literature is wrong because we need to use it a basis for interpreting the game.
Each sentence is rarely complete in itself. Its perfectly reasonable for follow up text to provide detail and restrictions on previous text without considering it a contradiction.
Flavour text is relevant.
There is no mechanical prohibition on them using spells on others and honestly, enforcing that limitation is arbitrarily harsh and penalizing given that the bonuses they get are terrible from an offensive standpoint given than that it applies to, at best, half of the opponents they're ever going to fight.
The rules that govern what the anathema restricts in no way state that they cannot cast their own spells on others and even the flavor doesn't even strongly suggest that is the case. Thematically, I could see why people might think they should not be able to cast spells of their own but that isn't something that is actually addressed and therefore is allowed.
I'd like to add to this: I'd fully support a GM/Player who wanted to reinterpret the culture of their superstitious barbarian in a particular way. Especially for their own game.
The base restrictions on this character are quite harsh and impact the rest of the party. I'm sure other compromises exist, that have different limitations.
Its an interesting concept to expand on, and can be a fun character to explore.
This game has a large amount of interpretation, and is explicitly in Natural Language. Dismissing any part of the published literature is wrong because we need to use it a basis for interpreting the game.
Each sentence is rarely complete in itself. Its perfectly reasonable for follow up text to provide detail and restrictions on previous text without considering it a contradiction.
Flavour text is relevant.
Flavor text is important. It gives basic guidelines at how to play a character, how the world consider such types of character, what visual effects a spell has, etc... The whole book would be bland without it.
But you can entirely ignore it from a rule point of view. The only use of it, rulewise, is to sometimes hint at RAI. But even in that case, we've seen more than once flavor text being in contradiction with RAW and no errata coming to solve it (Dispel Magic for example). So, in my opinion, it's just better to entirely ignore flavor text when it comes to rules.
The only problem is that it's not always obvious to separate flavor text from mechanical text.
This game has a large amount of interpretation, and is explicitly in Natural Language. Dismissing any part of the published literature is wrong because we need to use it a basis for interpreting the game.
Each sentence is rarely complete in itself. Its perfectly reasonable for follow up text to provide detail and restrictions on previous text without considering it a contradiction.
Flavour text is relevant.
Flavor text is important. It gives basic guidelines at how to play a character, how the world consider such types of character, what visual effects a spell has, etc... The whole book would be bland without it.
But you can entirely ignore it from a rule point of view. The only use of it, rulewise, is to sometimes hint at RAI. But even in that case, we've seen more than once flavor text being in contradiction with RAW and no errata coming to solve it (Dispel Magic for example). So, in my opinion, it's just better to entirely ignore flavor text when it comes to rules.
The only problem is that it's not always obvious to separate flavor text from mechanical text.
We really part ways on this. There is no contradiction in Dispel Magic. No need for errata. It is totally clear.
This game has a large amount of interpretation, and is explicitly in Natural Language. Dismissing any part of the published literature is wrong because we need to use it a basis for interpreting the game.
Each sentence is rarely complete in itself. Its perfectly reasonable for follow up text to provide detail and restrictions on previous text without considering it a contradiction.
Flavour text is relevant.
Flavor text is important. It gives basic guidelines at how to play a character, how the world consider such types of character, what visual effects a spell has, etc... The whole book would be bland without it.
But you can entirely ignore it from a rule point of view. The only use of it, rulewise, is to sometimes hint at RAI. But even in that case, we've seen more than once flavor text being in contradiction with RAW and no errata coming to solve it (Dispel Magic for example). So, in my opinion, it's just better to entirely ignore flavor text when it comes to rules.
The only problem is that it's not always obvious to separate flavor text from mechanical text.
We really part ways on this. There is no contradiction in Dispel Magic. No need for errata. It is totally clear.
"Targets 1 spell effect or unattended magic item"
"You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect."Direct contradiction between the target and the flavorful description.
Also, if one of your players want to play a Sorcerer that gained their powers thanks to a specific event that happened during their life, you tell them that it's not possible because flavor text says so? I hardly think so. But the same player telling you they took a Wizard Thesis instead of a Sorcerer Bloodline because it was more in line with their character will meet a very different answer.
I hardly think you consider flavor text to be part of the rules. Enforcing flavor text... reduces flavors, actually.
This game has a large amount of interpretation, and is explicitly in Natural Language. Dismissing any part of the published literature is wrong because we need to use it a basis for interpreting the game.
Each sentence is rarely complete in itself. Its perfectly reasonable for follow up text to provide detail and restrictions on previous text without considering it a contradiction.
Flavour text is relevant.
Flavor text is important. It gives basic guidelines at how to play a character, how the world consider such types of character, what visual effects a spell has, etc... The whole book would be bland without it.
But you can entirely ignore it from a rule point of view. The only use of it, rulewise, is to sometimes hint at RAI. But even in that case, we've seen more than once flavor text being in contradiction with RAW and no errata coming to solve it (Dispel Magic for example). So, in my opinion, it's just better to entirely ignore flavor text when it comes to rules.
The only problem is that it's not always obvious to separate flavor text from mechanical text.
We really part ways on this. There is no contradiction in Dispel Magic. No need for errata. It is totally clear.
"Targets 1 spell effect or unattended magic item"
"You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect."
Direct contradiction between the target and the flavorful description.Also, if one of your players want to play a Sorcerer that gained their powers thanks to a specific event that happened during their life, you tell them that it's not possible because flavor text says so? I hardly think so. But the same player telling you they took a Wizard Thesis instead of a Sorcerer Bloodline because it was more in line with their character will meet a very different answer.
I hardly think you consider flavor text to be part of the rules. Enforcing flavor text... reduces flavors, actually.
Not seeing the contradiction. An item's magic is an effect.
Not seeing the contradiction. An item's magic is an effect.
If you apply the mechanics, you use Dispel Magic against spells and magic items. If you apply the flavor text, you use Dispel Magic against spells and magical effects. And (roughly) everyone ignores the flavor text by allowing Dispel Magic only against spells and magic items.
But this isn't the only case where flavor text is not precisely in line with mechanical text. Just read a few spells and see where enforcing flavor text would make crazy rulings. For example, Roaring Applause states that the spell "incite cheers and applauses", does it work on a mute target? Air Bubble "appears around the target's head", does it work on an Azarketi? Does Echoing Weapon works if you never strike a blow?
You will end up with tons of crazy rulings if you try to enforce flavor text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not seeing the contradiction. An item's magic is an effect.If you apply the mechanics, you use Dispel Magic against spells and magic items. If you apply the flavor text, you use Dispel Magic against spells and magical effects. And (roughly) everyone ignores the flavor text by allowing Dispel Magic only against spells and magic items.
Well all magic items are also magic effects. So what is the gap? Are their magical abilities that aren't spells? I don't think so. Just because they are innate doesn't stop them from being spells. Rituals are spells.
But this isn't the only case where flavor text is not precisely in line with mechanical text. Just read a few spells and see where enforcing flavor text would make crazy rulings. For example, Roaring Applause states that the spell "incite cheers and applauses", does it work on a mute target? Air Bubble "appears around the target's head", does it work on an Azarketi? Does Echoing Weapon works if you never strike a blow?
You will end up with tons of crazy rulings if you try to enforce flavor text.
I don't see any of these as problems. Of course the rules are written with certain assumptions in mind and may need to be reinterpreted. Roaring Applause would probably cause a mute target to applaud, but they would be unable to speak. Yes that's an interpretation but its exactly what the rules say to do. Its not a contradiction that the spell doesn't have explicit instructions for that.
Its also not a contradiction if the mechanics of the spell narrows the scope of the descriptive text. Explaining detail is not a contradiction.
Well all magic items are also magic effects. So what is the gap? Are their magical abilities that aren't spells? I don't think so. Just because they are innate doesn't stop them from being spells. Rituals are spells.
Yes, a truckload of them. Breath weapons, Giant/Spirit/Dragon Barbarian Rage, Auras. Everything with the tag Divine/Arcane/Primal/Occult/Magical is a magical effect and there are tons of them, way more than spells.
Roaring Applause would probably cause a mute target to applaud, but they would be unable to speak. Yes that's an interpretation but its exactly what the rules say to do.
Everytime there's an issue with flavor text, I bet your interpretation will be to ignore flavor text. I think we have the same point of view, I just state it as a general rule when you apply it case by case.
Well all magic items are also magic effects. So what is the gap? Are their magical abilities that aren't spells? I don't think so. Just because they are innate doesn't stop them from being spells. Rituals are spells.Yes, a truckload of them. Breath weapons, Giant/Spirit/Dragon Barbarian Rage, Auras. Everything with the tag Divine/Arcane/Primal/Occult/Magical is a magical effect and there are tons of them, way more than spells.
Rage is not magical. Animal and Spirit Barbarian Rage is, and some feats are. Ok so yeah some feats have magical effects that are not magical spells. Yes I accept that you could reasonably see it as a contradiction.
Roaring Applause would probably cause a mute target to applaud, but they would be unable to speak. Yes that's an interpretation but its exactly what the rules say to do.Everytime there's an issue with flavor text, I bet your interpretation will be to ignore flavor text. I think we have the same point of view, I just state it as a general rule when you apply it case by case.
Yes I would read the particulars and just apply them. I would not allow you to switch off the rage of a Spirit Barbarian with Dispel Magic. I don't disparage it as saying the descriptive text was wrong. or that it is wrong, just that it was a general statement and not as specific as it could have been.
I don't disparage it as saying the descriptive text was wrong. or that it is wrong, just that it was a general statement and not as specific as it could have been.
Would you allow a creature without hands to cast Lightning Bolt?
Would you allow a creature whose respiratory organ is not on the head to benefit from Air Bubble?Would you allow an Electric Arc to be cast on 2 targets that don't have line of effect between each other?
Would you consider that the caster moves when casting Tame?
Do I have to go through the whole book to show you that you actually never apply descriptive text?
Do I have to go through the whole book to show you that you actually never apply descriptive text?
No. Because we do reference descriptive text when we try to interpret the spell. It has a use.
If it contained mechanical information you would merely say it was not descriptive text but rule text. The line between them is not always clear.
But apart from which is like saying the description of a character is not relevant to the character. It often won't be in a mechanical way, but sometimes it is.
(Yes I appreciate that I say this as a person whose character descriptions are often terse)
Do I have to go through the whole book to show you that you actually never apply descriptive text?No. Because we do reference descriptive text when we try to interpret the spell. It has a use.
If it contained mechanical information you would merely say it was not descriptive text but rule text. The line between them is not always clear.
You're not answering my question.
Anyway, descriptive text is useful as we are playing a roleplaying game. Being able to describe your actions, the effects of your spells, is as important as being able to determine their mechanical impact.
You're not answering my question.Do I have to go through the whole book to show you that you actually never apply descriptive text?No. Because we do reference descriptive text when we try to interpret the spell. It has a use.
If it contained mechanical information you would merely say it was not descriptive text but rule text. The line between them is not always clear.
There were a lot of things that were said, and quite frankly that was one of the most throw-away lines imo, as it sounds sarcastic and is, quite frankly, unrealistic, so it's not surprising no one asked you to do so, but rather explained an alternative way of looking at things that may make one change their mind about the distinction between "descriptive text" and "rule text".
On a separate note, I'd like to point out that in the eyes of people who disagree with you on this point (myself being one of them) anathema are the biggest example of applying descriptive text, so if you don't see it as being relevant here, then of course nothing else in the book is going to convince you, so no, there would not be a use in going through everything in the book and saying "see, this doesn't use it either".
There were a lot of things that were said, and quite frankly that was one of the most throw-away lines imo, as it sounds sarcastic
Gortle's answer was a sidestep. I pointed it out to also explain why I wasn't answering it much as this is just a different debate. As a side note, I'm not disagreeing with him about it.
On a separate note, I'd like to point out that in the eyes of people who disagree with you on this point (myself being one of them) anathema are the biggest example of applying descriptive text, so if you don't see it as being relevant here, then of course nothing else in the book is going to convince you, so no, there would not be a use in going through everything in the book and saying "see, this doesn't use it either".
Well, I disagree about anathema being descriptive text. They are directly related to rules, like allowed alignments, divine fonts, divine skill and such.
Edit:
To take a more obvious example: Tame spell says in the descriptive text: "As you make comforting sounds and gestures, you approach the target in a friendly manner combining caution and confidence." while the mechanical effect doesn't give you any movement.
This case is extremely clear about how descriptive text has to be ignored. If you start applying descriptive text, expect a lot of issues.
Now, there are lore-related rules, like anathema and alignment restrictions. These ones have to be applied, like any rule.
I agree that the distinction between descriptive text and rule text is not clearly stated. That's an issue, but in general we don't mess up too much between both types of text (and scream when a piece of descriptive text looks like mechanical one).
My whole point is just: Descriptive text is not mechanical one and as such shouldn't be applied.
My whole point is just: Descriptive text is not mechanical one and as such shouldn't be applied.
Isn't that kind of a self-referential statement, though? If your definition of descriptive text is one that doesn't involve mechanics, which you just admitted can be difficult to figure out at times, then aren't you basically saying that text that don't affect mechanics don't affect mechanics?
I don't really see flavor text that way when it comes to character motivation, and for anathema, edicts, and so forth I think the most important thing is the character's intentions, not whether it hits certain things on a check list.
You're right that for most things there's a clear delineation wherein the first sentence or two of an ability will tell you what's happening in the game world (i.e. what your character sees/does) so you can picture it and be more immersed, and the rest is typically talking about what that looks like from a player's perspective. Anathema aren't really set up that way, though. Let's take animal instinct, for example. This is the full text: "Flagrantly disrespecting an animal of your chosen kind is anathema to your instinct, as is using weapons while raging." What does "flagrantly disrespecting" mean? No definition is given in terms of mechanics. Does that mean it should be ignored? Of course not, as it's specifically called out as anathema.
As for superstition instinct specifically I can see an argument either way, though, even if interpreted fairly loosely it's still one of the most restrictive anathema in the game, so I'd be inclined to err on the side of allowing things that aren't explicitly mentioned, but I feel like at this point the discussion has strayed pretty far from that specific instinct, so I'm not sure how relevant that is at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you allow a creature without hands to cast Lightning Bolt?
Depends. Probably as I would just consider what it was supposed to be able to do it. Example a monster without hands that had a listed ability to cast lightning bolt - then definitely yes. But it the hands of the creature had been cut off - then no as the spell has somatic components. There are actually a lot of these type of cases. The rules are written for a typical humanoid. It is appropriate that the GM interprets these in a way that makes them somewhat useful.
Probably the easiest example to come up with is a Poppet character, with the Nothing but Fluff feat. Then make the Poppet a toy of something weird like a horse, or a snake, or a rocket ship, a row boat, a tower, or a fire truck. The GM basically needs to decide at character creation - is such a creature going to be allowed to function somehow, or is it going to have major crippling restrictions on it, or is it just banned because its an abomination which doesn't fit the genre. A Familiar with the manual dexterity option is in the same situation.
A good example to answer this would be Grapple It requires a free hand. But clearly Snakes Grapple. Even Animal companion Snakes that use the PC rules not the monster rules. What do you do as a GM?
It will inform all your other answers.
Would you allow a creature whose respiratory organ is not on the head to benefit from Air Bubble?
Well they breathe out through gills and in through the mouth, so your Azarketi example is not a good one. So you are thinking of gills in the chest aka The Deep, not gills in the neck. Still not how it works. Anyway, its the same as my previous answer.
Would you allow an Electric Arc to be cast on 2 targets that don't have line of effect between each other?
The line of effect is via the caster at a minimum. Its an arc and electricity does not have to be straight. But yes the GM might choose to go with another interpretation
I find these questions are really style things for the GM. The GM should just decide his style and do it. As long as he is consistent then it is fine.
Back to the original topic. I would play the superstitious barbarian as written because the restrictions are harsh enough. I don't find the rule unclear, but I think it is a bad rule. In my own game (not PFS for example) I would talk to a player who wanted a character like this and rewrite the anathema as I find it too much of an imposition on the rest of the party. It is very poorly designed for that reason.
Where I have problems with the rules are the gaps that you can't even work out for normal humanoids and base class abilities. Wild shapers and Summoners having problems here. There are too many things that are just unclear and let for the GM.