Dark Archive errata thread


Rules Discussion

151 to 200 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Dream Magic This is wild.

Choose dream message or sleep upon taking this feat; you learn this spell as a 4th-level innate occult spell. If you choose sleep, you can cast the spell only while in a Daydream Trance. You become trained in occult spell attack rolls and spell DCs, and your spellcasting ability for these spells is Wisdom.

Sleep 4 having the excellent effect of save or be unconcious, but why is your spell casting ability Wisdom instead of Charisma? For Occult that is weird. Anyway, the issue is it doesn't say how often you can cast your innate spell. I'm guessing once per day


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

"The ability that gives you an innate spell tells you how often you can cast it—usually once per day—and its magical tradition." -- CRB, page 302.

Seems like the failure to state how often one can cast it is an editing error. I see two possible approaches: 1) since the rule quoted above says "usually once per day", that's how often or 2) since the feat doesn't specify, it's unlimited casting. I think I'd go with 1, but until Paizo issues a correction, it's up to the GM.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here are some questions I found while writing my psychic guide:

1)It is easy to break the focus point system for psychics, and basically invalidating a level 18 feat:

Because of the wording, even at level five if you spent all three focus points in a fight, one not on any psychic class abilities, you could spend ten minutes to refocus for 1 point. Cast any amped cantrip for no effect (pushing your friend to the floor, amping a detect magic, etc.), and then refocus. Now you have only spent focus points on psychic abilities since the last time you refocused, so you get two psychic points back, again cast an amped cantrip, (leaving you with one focus point), again refocus and you are up to three.

This is almost certainly not what the game designers intended but there is no current eratta on how to fix it.

2) Is there a particular reason you can only unleash your psyche in combat? Could your warrior friend spar with you to unleash psyche outside of combat? I only ask because emotional acceptance could heal 1/ten minutes out of combat just like a champion's lay on hands, a Druid's Goodberry, or a thaumaturge's chalice. Just seems a time-saver on out of combat healing, and there's already plenty of (effectively) zero cost out-of-combat healing abilities.

3) Technically, rules as written, the dancing blade cantrip benefits from weapon potency runes and property runes (but not striking runes.) I assume this isn't intended as spellcasters don't get nice things, but the wording says that the weapon makes a 'strike' and potency runes add to the hit of 'strikes.' Most property runes add to 'strikes' as well.

4) Since Mindshift actions allow you to 'add or remove energy' for an oscilating wave psychic, does this allow them to 'flip their switch' from hot to cold or vice versa? The wording seems to imply yes in one section and no in another.

5) Is there a reason Imaginary weapon is limited to simple weapons? Isn't it imaginary? Couldn't it be a giant lollypop if we wanted it to be? Why not say "no matter the shape it takes, it has these properties and no others: versitile s/b."

6) The exact wording of Ancestral Mind is “You can cast any innate spells you know from an ancestry feat or heritage using your psychic spellcasting components. [. . .]." It is unclear if they mean ‘Any and all ancestry feat(s) or heritage(s)’ or ‘Any one ancestry feat or heritage.’ I assume the former (as it talks about ‘spells’ and almost all ancestry feats grant a single spell) I don't know for sure.

7) What is the DC to counteract stupified on the psychic's Unleashed Psyche condition? Y'know, for Mental Balm or Hollistic Care? (from the medic archetype?)


VampByDay wrote:

Here are some questions I found while writing my psychic guide:

1)It is easy to break the focus point system for psychics, and basically invalidating a level 18 feat:

Because of the wording, even at level five if you spent all three focus points in a fight, one not on any psychic class abilities, you could spend ten minutes to refocus for 1 point. Cast any amped cantrip for no effect (pushing your friend to the floor, amping a detect magic, etc.), and then refocus. Now you have only spent focus points on psychic abilities since the last time you refocused, so you get two psychic points back, again cast an amped cantrip, (leaving you with one focus point), again refocus and you are up to three.

This is almost certainly not what the game designers intended but there is no current eratta on how to fix it.

I don't see this as a major problem. Yes it does devalue the level 18 feat a bit. It does mean mixing Amps with other Focus spells works from level 1. I GMed some more Abomination Vault last night and basically the players get as much time as they want in most situations. But that is not always the case. Sometimes time is important you don't always get 30 minutes or even 10 minutes. I'll often see a GM just hand out one 10 minute break before forcing the pace, sometimes none.

VampByDay wrote:


2) Is there a particular reason you can only unleash your psyche in combat? Could your warrior friend spar with you to unleash psyche outside of combat? I only ask because emotional acceptance could heal 1/ten minutes out of combat just like a champion's lay on hands, a Druid's Goodberry, or a thaumaturge's chalice. Just seems a time-saver on out of combat healing, and there's already plenty of (effectively) zero cost out-of-combat healing abilities.

I think that is a GM call. They decide what an encounter is. I'm certainly not hard on it and always allow use outside of combat, if a player wants. Its just to wierd to me to limit things to only encounters and then not let players use normal abilities. In this case you could justify denying it by considering its a Rage like power that needs an enemy or something to be angry about.

VampByDay wrote:


3) Technically, rules as written, the dancing blade cantrip benefits from weapon potency runes and property runes (but not striking runes.) I assume this isn't intended as spellcasters don't get nice things, but the wording says that the weapon makes a 'strike' and potency runes add to the hit of 'strikes.' Most property runes add to 'strikes' as well.

Obviously Striking Runes don't add. IMHO Dancing Blade doesn't do enough damage unless it fundamental and property runes add. It would be worse that a Psychic getting proficiency with and picking up a Rapier or a Bow and striking with it. For me it would be a null option without the runes, so I'll be playing it as written. I suppose my expectation is your deepest Pschic power is moderately effective and not just a relabelled basic Strike.

VampByDay wrote:


4) Since Mindshift actions allow you to 'add or remove energy' for an oscilating wave psychic, does this allow them to 'flip their switch' from hot to cold or vice versa? The wording seems to imply yes in one section and no in another.

Enabled once is enabled. How is it denied?

VampByDay wrote:


5) Is there a reason Imaginary weapon is limited to simple weapons? Isn't it imaginary? Couldn't it be a giant lollypop if we wanted it to be? Why not...

You are getting side tracked by bad language. The word simple is descriptive not a rules element in this case. Because this power has nothing to do with weapon proficiency simple is just natural language. The Imaginary Weapon can be whatever you want it to be. Describe it how you want eg blade of force, ram of energy, shaft of pure magic, or a mystic axe. It does not matter it has the damage and effect described.


Gortle wrote:
Enabled once is enabled. How is it denied?

The first sentence of Conservation of Energy, where they often put inaccurate or overinclusive flavor descriptions, says it effects "magical" effects. But later in the meat, where the real rules always are, it says that "spells" are what Conservation of Energy operates on. Psi abilities aren't spells.

The mindshift sidebar allows you to use fire/cold on psi abilities, but doesn't tie it into the Conservation of Energy flipping mechanism.


John R. wrote:
Found one. Imaginary Weapon unamped calls for a melee spell attack but amped it calls for 2 strikes. Very odd for a spell and inconsistent with itself.

Its almost consistent. The context is important to the meaning. It says imaginary weapon Strikes which can only refer to the melee spell attack in the same power. There is just nothing else it could be.

John R. wrote:
I'm already MCing into Tangible Dream Psychic with my Thaumaturge who will be taking Tome. With the Tome's Intensify Implement ability, if the amped version of Imaginary Weapon does indeed count as strikes, I could set myself up for some truly devastating attacks come lvl 9.

Yes its annoying they have used Strike in this way. To me this is the real issue here. They have modified the rules element Strike significantly. Normally they would use the term attack. But this opens this up to potential shenanigans as you say. Example what about using the Imaginary Weapon Strike with an Attack of Opportunity? Was that intended or not? There is a solid line of reasoning that it does work. Plus a huge number of knock on effects.


Xenocrat wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Enabled once is enabled. How is it denied?

The first sentence of Conservation of Energy, where they often put inaccurate or overinclusive flavor descriptions, says it effects "magical" effects. But later in the meat, where the real rules always are, it says that "spells" are what Conservation of Energy operates on. Psi abilities aren't spells.

The mindshift sidebar allows you to use fire/cold on psi abilities, but doesn't tie it into the Conservation of Energy flipping mechanism.

Both sentences enable, neither denies. Clearly Mindshift powers count for the purposed of the Adding Energy and Removing Energy abilities. They don't have to involve the first paragraph of Conservation of Energy at all.

Looking at it I'd say that Mindshift abilities that aren't spells or cantrips don't flip the energy.

That is clear, a bit odd, and I'd prefer it to be explicit. Perhaps it wasn't intended. But its an occult power it doesn't have to be sensible, so I'd prefer to play it as written.


Gortle wrote:
John R. wrote:
Found one. Imaginary Weapon unamped calls for a melee spell attack but amped it calls for 2 strikes. Very odd for a spell and inconsistent with itself.

Its almost consistent. The context is important to the meaning. It says imaginary weapon Strikes which can only refer to the melee spell attack in the same power. There is just nothing else it could be.

John R. wrote:
I'm already MCing into Tangible Dream Psychic with my Thaumaturge who will be taking Tome. With the Tome's Intensify Implement ability, if the amped version of Imaginary Weapon does indeed count as strikes, I could set myself up for some truly devastating attacks come lvl 9.

Yes its annoying they have used Strike in this way. To me this is the real issue here. They have modified the rules element Strike significantly. Normally they would use the term attack. But this opens this up to potential shenanigans as you say. Example what about using the Imaginary Weapon Strike with an Attack of Opportunity? Was that intended or not? There is a solid line of reasoning that it does work. Plus a huge number of knock on effects.

Unfortunate editing miss on "Strike" aside, I don't think AOO would apply even if it is actually a Strike. It is a spell effect with no duration, so it does its thing immediately and goes away.

Am I missing something where it persists somehow?


Saedar wrote:

I don't think AOO would apply even if it is actually a Strike. It is a spell effect with no duration, so it does its thing immediately and goes away.

Am I missing something where it persists somehow?

Technically when a spell has an effect with no duration it is permanent. This spell creates an imaginary weapon. It doesn't go away. Example Wall of Stone. We only know is permanent as it doesn't have a duration.

That is too silly, there is no extra text to support it here, and it causes lots of problems. So I wouldn't do that. You are probably right here.


AON - Spell Durations wrote:
The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts. Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration entry. A spell might last until the start or end of a turn, for some number of rounds, for minutes, or even longer. If a spell’s duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the spellcaster’s turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.

Bit of an inferring-the-opposite situation here but this is what I'm basing my thoughts on (in addition to it being kind of silly anyway).

No Duration entry? Only lasts an instant. Admittedly, this is in conflict with little known spell Wall of Stone. So. Ya know. Good times.

EDIT

Just came across this bit. So. Maybe I'm wrong and this is just very silly.

AON - Reading Spells wrote:
If a spell allows the target to attempt a saving throw, the type of save appears here. Any details on the particular results and timing of the save appear in the text unless the entry specifies a basic saving throw. If the spell requires a save only under certain circumstances or at a certain time, this entry is omitted, since the text needs to explain it in more detail. A spell that doesn't list a duration takes place instantaneously, and anything created by it persists after the spell.

I guess "created" is doing a lot of work here.

Scarab Sages

Guys, this has been requested several times
"THIS IS A LIST OF REQUESTS FOR ERRATA. PUT DISCUSSIONS SOMEWHERE ELSE" If you think the errata request is superflous, fine, set up your own list of errata that don't need to be errata'ed. Let paizo sort out what it's going to talk about or not. The OP has requested this multiple times to make it easier for Paizo to speed-read and fix.

Now, on to my actual errata requests:

Thought this one was obvious but someone pointed out it hasn't been codified with exact language.

So nowhere in the rules does it say that Esoteric Lore is bound only to thaumaturges. Sure, you say it is a 'special' skill, but you don't say anything about normal classes not being able to pick it up. I know I assumed that was the case, but it isn't stated specifically.

On the same line, I know I assumed that Esoteric Lore rolled against the normal DC to identify the monster (not DC-2 for generally applicable lore skill, or DC-5 for a Specific Lore skill) but that again, is not specifically written. Seems that with esoteric lore being charisma based, piling a -5 onto the DC means you could almost never fail to identify a creature.

Lastly from the Psychic: "Mental static" uses the following terminology: "if you ROLL a critical success on a will save." I have never seen the term 'roll' on an ability outside of specific dice rolls (rolling a nat 20 or 1, flat checks). Does this mean you have to get an actual critical succcess, or does it trigger off of 'effective' critical successes (such as getting a success with the wall of will class feature?) Genuinely curious, as I can see your though process going either way.


VampByDay wrote:
So nowhere in the rules does it say that Esoteric Lore is bound only to thaumaturges. Sure, you say it is a 'special' skill, but you don't say anything about normal classes not being able to pick it up. I know I assumed that was the case, but it isn't stated specifically.

I agree, this needs errata to be more clear. I believe the intent is that you can't and don't gain esoteric lore through any means other than being a full thaumaturge. But this should be spelled out explicitly, in both the entry on esoteric lore, and the Thaumaturge dedication. (The summoner is a good example of a dedication explicitly calling out features which aren't gained by the dedication, RE tandem actions).

Additionally, Loremaster should probably be errata'd to work with Esoteric Lore (i.e., a +1 bonus to esoteric lore, just like bardic lore). While we're at it, rope "gossip lore" in there too, and any other "special lores".

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:


So nowhere in the rules does it say that Esoteric Lore is bound only to thaumaturges. Sure, you say it is a 'special' skill, but you don't say anything about normal classes not being able to pick it up. I know I assumed that was the case, but it isn't stated specifically.

I think you've tripped yourself up a good bit here.

Everything interesting about Esoteric Lore is a Thaumaturge class feature, and not active to the skill itself.

Anyone can take a Lore skill, call it Esoteric Lore and use it like a normal lore skill on whatever the GM deems it applies to.

Nothing from the Thaumaturge class feature carries over inherently to any skill called "Esoteric Lore". Just like Bardic Lore (which, if taken without a class feature, would just be about bard s$+~)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
atlas_hugged wrote:


I agree, this needs errata to be more clear. I believe the intent is that you can't and don't gain esoteric lore through any means other than being a full thaumaturge.

Its a Thaumaturge class feature, it doesn't really need called out.

atlas_hugged wrote:


But this should be spelled out explicitly, in both the entry on esoteric lore, and the Thaumaturge dedication. (The summoner is a good example of a dedication explicitly calling out features which aren't gained by the dedication, RE tandem actions).

The Thaumaturge dedication doesn't grant the Esoteric Lore class feature, nor can you take it via one of the feats.

The only thing I would errata here is to grant the Diverse Lore feat the "Prerequisites Exploit Vulnerability" line, to stop people taking it by mistake.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm pretty certain you can't just pick up any old lore anyway. Only those that have already been established in the game and those that the GM explicitly allows for.


Old_Man_Robot wrote:
atlas_hugged wrote:


I agree, this needs errata to be more clear. I believe the intent is that you can't and don't gain esoteric lore through any means other than being a full thaumaturge.

Its a Thaumaturge class feature, it doesn't really need called out.

atlas_hugged wrote:


But this should be spelled out explicitly, in both the entry on esoteric lore, and the Thaumaturge dedication. (The summoner is a good example of a dedication explicitly calling out features which aren't gained by the dedication, RE tandem actions).

The Thaumaturge dedication doesn't grant the Esoteric Lore class feature, nor can you take it via one of the feats.

The only thing I would errata here is to grant the Diverse Lore feat the "Prerequisites Exploit Vulnerability" line, to stop people taking it by mistake.

I agree the errata isn't necessary from a strict reading of the rules, but it is optimal for clarity purposes, given that this is an extremely common misconception.

Your proposed errata would indirectly make it more clear, but people would still take it based on a belief that glimpse vulnerability can sub in for exploit vulnerability (given other feats in the archetype, which work similarly). I would much prefer the errata just directly address the issue in a clear manner, rather than try to address it in an round-about manner.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
atlas_hugged wrote:


Your proposed errata would indirectly make it more clear, but people would still take it based on a belief that glimpse vulnerability can sub in for exploit vulnerability (given other feats in the archetype, which work similarly). I would much prefer the errata just directly address the issue in a clear manner, rather than try to address it in an round-about manner.

I think we are being overly generous with our interpretation here.

The Dedication only gives you the Glimpse Vulnerability action and nothing more around EV.

Quote:
Glimpse Vulnerability (esoterica, manipulate); Frequency once per round; Requirement You are holding your implement; Effect You glimpse a hidden vulnerability and then strengthen it to aid you. Select a creature you can see. Until you Glimpse Vulnerability again, that target gains weakness 2 against your unarmed and weapon Strikes.

Its its own, wholly different ability, that does not in any way grant a you Exploit Vulnerability on any basis other than a theme.

If we look at the only other archetype feat which mentions Glimpse Vulnerability

Implement Initiate wrote:
You gain your implement's initiate benefit. If the benefit affects the target of Exploit Vulnerability, for you it affects the target of Glimpse Vulnerability instead.

Once again its a wholly different ability that doesn't even connect. What this feat is saying is that, even though you don't have ability X, you can instead use ability Y, in cases ability X was needed to target.

It doesn't interact with feats, access, prerequisites or anything like that. It just allows you to swap one ability use with another in a particular set of circumstances.

The Thaumaturge dedication has literally zero ways of gaining either the Esoteric Lore or Exploit Vulnerability class features. These are unique class features held by the Thaumaturge class itself.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm pretty certain you can't just pick up any old lore anyway. Only those that have already been established in the game and those that the GM explicitly allows for.

"You gain a specific subcategory of the Lore skill from your background. The GM determines what other subcategories they’ll allow as Lore skills, though these categories are always less broad than any of the other skills that allow you to Recall Knowledge, and they should never be able to fully or mainly take the place of another skill’s Recall Knowledge action." -- CRB, p. 247

Bardic Lore sets a precedent, in that the skill is only available via a Bard Class Feat. Since I don't have my Dark Archive yet, I can't speak for certain to whether the precedent should apply, but if Esoteric Lore is introduced via a Class Feat, perhaps it is only available via that class feat. The Bardic Lore feat says "a special Lore skill that can be used only to Recall Knowledge, but on any topic." What does the description of Esoteric Lore say?


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
What does the description of Esoteric Lore say?

Here you go:

Esoteric Lore: Your experience with the unknown, as well as the tales you've exchanged with other thaumaturges, has taught you about strange phenomena of every kind. You become trained in Esoteric Lore, a special lore skill that can be used to Recall Knowledge regarding haunts, curses, and creatures of any type, but that can't be used to Recall Knowledge of other topics. Unlike a normal Lore skill, you use Charisma as your modifier on Esoteric Lore checks. You also gain the Dubious Knowledge skill feat.

At 3rd level, you become an expert in Esoteric Lore; at 7th level, you become a master in Esoteric Lore; and at 15th level, you become legendary in Esoteric Lore.

As you can see it is clearly called out as a special Lore skill, but little else is mentioned regarding limitations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, we have rules for how the Lore skill works and what you're allowed to take for Lore. Bardic/Esoteric specifically violate those rules in unique ways because they're specific feats.

Saying that anyone should be able to take that same Lore and get the same benefits is like saying anyone should be able to Strike and Trip without increasing their MAP because there's a fighter feat that lets you do that.


Old_Man_Robot wrote:


I think we are being overly generous with our interpretation here.

My man. At this point we've both acknowledged two things:

1. By raw, the dedication doesn't give you esoteric lore
2. People keep mistakingly thinking it does (Since you admitted people keep taking diverse lore by mistake).

An errata for clarity would be optimal, because this is apparently a common mistake.

What I am saying, is that I would prefer Paizo clearly errata the dedication feat to deny any access to Esoteric Lore, much like how they wrote the summoner dedication feat to deny access to tandem actions in the clearest manner they could.

I believe this is preferable to what you proposed, because what you proposed would not stop people from misinterpreting the dedication. Your errata does not increase clarity. To be absolutely clear: I do not think errata-ing the dedication feat to include language like "you do not gain any special proficiency in esoteric lore, a unique lore skill which can only be accessed by the Thaumaturge class" would change the current RAW at all. It would simply make the RAW clear to those who are misinterpreting it in a way that the current language clearly does not, and in a way that I suspect what you proposed would not either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Psychic
Swapping Spells In Your Repertoire

There is no mention of not being able to swap Granted Spells from your Conscious Mind, unlike the Sorcerer's Swapping Spells which explicitly notes that you can't swap out bloodline spells.

Is this correct or is this an error and Conscious Mind Granted Spells should not be able to be swapped out?

Swapping Spells In Your Repertoire
As you gain new spells in your repertoire, you might want to replace some of the spells you previously learned. Each time you gain a level and learn new spells, you can swap out one of your old spells for a different spell of the same level. This spell can be a cantrip. You can also swap out spells by retraining during downtime.
Source Archives of Nethys - Psychic


SilentInfinity wrote:

There is no mention of not being able to swap Granted Spells from your Conscious Mind, unlike the Sorcerer's Swapping Spells which explicitly notes that you can't swap out bloodline spells.

Is this correct or is this an error and Conscious Mind Granted Spells should not be able to be swapped out?

Or they finally fixed their mistake. I extremely dislike having unchangeable trash spells in 'granted' lists and will exploit this heavily. Thank you for the find.

I get they want lists thematic. But Mindlink for the Silent Whisper for 2-slots- and 2-spells-caster? Have anyone used this spell even once in all the existence of the game? (Well, someone probably did, but no matter)


This is a formatting issue more than an error, but I noticed that the complex hazards in Dark Archive give their stealth DC in their statblocks rather than their stealth value for rolling initiative like hazards in other books do, and like how the complex hazard rules in the CRB say they're written.

Just pointing it out because otherwise it looks at a glance like you are still supposed to add 10 to the DC and that could trip people up.


Silent Whisper's 6th level granted spell, Sending, is not a 6th level spell at all. Sending a 5th level spell.


Ghostly Shift has an issue that makes it hard to use. It has a range of 30ft. and affects a creature, but is written as if it could only affect you. And it's really hard to know the intent in its case as both readings seem logical.


"Instead of speaking, you substitute any verbal components with a special mental component determined by your subconscious mind class feature. [...] Your spells still have clear and noticeable visual and auditory
manifestations, as normal for a spellcaster." (supplemented by the flavour text in the various subconscious minds)

Since it has come up a few times elsewhere and it is indeed somewhat ambiguously worded - when do psychic spell start to produce sound? Already during casting or only when the actual spell effects themselves manifest?

Because from how they are worded, the mental components don't necessarily have to involve sound.


Karmagator wrote:
Because from how they are worded, the mental components don't necessarily have to involve sound.

They don't involve it. But spells themselves have sound effects to make casting clearly audible, instead of audible speaking of verbal components. Because the designers hate stealthy casters.

That is mostly my understanding of intent, but it's basically in your quote: "auditory manifestations". Also each subconscious mind describes more specifically sound effects of spellcasting. Though still vaguely to allow for players to invent their own effects.


Errenor wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Because from how they are worded, the mental components don't necessarily have to involve sound.

They don't involve it. But spells themselves have sound effects to make casting clearly audible, instead of audible speaking of verbal components. Because the designers hate stealthy casters.

That is mostly my understanding of intent, but it's basically in your quote: "auditory manifestations". Also each subconscious mind describes more specifically sound effects of spellcasting. Though still vaguely to allow for players to invent their own effects.

The thought components don't have to produce sound, but they might, or at least that's what the flavour text would suggest.

My problem with all of this is that thought components explicitly become part of casting the spell, yet everything involved in them only talks about spell manifestations, which should come after casting. For example, fireball manifests as an orb of fire and goes boom at the target. And those are explicitly not silent ("Your spells still have clear and noticeable visual and auditory manifestations, as normal for a spellcaster.")

Given that the CRB only ever talks about these manifestations during casting, I can see why this can create confusion and I'm honestly not 100% sure myself. Because it could either be that "spell manifestations" are supposed to be everything - casting and the resulting effect - or just the resulting effect. The former would replace your chants (or whatever) with some other sound. The latter would make psychic spellcasting completely silent, if you choose it to be, so you would just have the visual lightshow to worry about.

That is a pretty significant gap that could use clarification in my opinion.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As the magic manifests in the world it creates a noticable "magic" sound. It's difficult to explain, kinda like a wooshing sound I guess? I like how the Owlcat games portray magic, where the caster casts the spell, says the magic words, and there is a magic circle on the ground and other manifestations around them. This is all separate from the actual effects of the spell. Even spells like Invisibility, which have no verbal component, make noise.

Psychics simply replace the magic words with magic thoughts; the rest of effects are normal. Mechanically the only difference is that they can cast spells while Silenced or while they have have some effect that would stop them from saying the words out loud, like Strangle. The wooshing and other manifestations aren't required for the casting, but instead are incidental.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:

As the magic manifests in the world it creates a noticable "magic" sound. It's difficult to explain, kinda like a wooshing sound I guess? I like how the Owlcat games portray magic, where the caster casts the spell, says the magic words, and there is a magic circle on the ground and other manifestations around them. This is all separate from the actual effects of the spell. Even spells like Invisibility, which have no verbal component, make noise.

Psychics simply replace the magic words with magic thoughts; the rest of effects are normal. Mechanically the only difference is that they can cast spells while Silenced or while they have have some effect that would stop them from saying the words out loud, like Strangle. The wooshing and other manifestations aren't required for the casting, but instead are incidental.

No. nononono. The designers are very wrong in Dark Archive about "Your spells still have clear and noticeable <...> AUDITORY manifestations, as NORMAL for a spellcaster." They invented these specifically for Psychics instead of sounds produced by verbal components and forgot about that (or weren't careful with the language, as it often happens). Common, 'traditional', non-psychic spells have only visual manifestations (and at least these runed circles around hands in all official artworks are completely in-universe and that's how they look: see Sorshen's article in Secrets of Magic) and audible words if verbal components are required. Spells without verbal components are completely silent already. You very much can cast Invisibility stealthily if you can hide your gestures and shining circles around your hands.

That's the main quote, but there aren't any auditory manifestations in CRB:
CRB wrote:
When you Cast a Spell, your spellcasting creates obvious VISUAL manifestations of the gathering magic, although feats such as Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell can help hide such manifestations or otherwise prevent observers from noticing that you are casting.


Karmagator wrote:
My problem with all of this is that thought components explicitly become part of casting the spell, yet everything involved in them only talks about spell manifestations, which should come after casting.

I advise you to carefully reread CRB on casting. There are manifestations and there are effects. Manifestations are only during casting, effects are after that, they are, well, effects of the spell. Manifestations are needed mechanically to make your casting perceptible, allow instant recognizing of spells and in-universe to explain magic a little and for a bit of fun. Effects are what a spell does.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The idea, I think, is to ensure that magic users can't surreptitiously cast spells. An idea that I find annoying, to tell the truth. As for "spells make noise just from being cast", yuck.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A spell's manifestations and a spell's effects are very different things in this game.


Manifestations are the thing that happen while the spell is coalescing, however it is you do it. They're sort of necessary to have a world where both "magic is relatively common" and "magic users are neither in charge of everything nor held to tremendous scrutiny by everybody around them."

Like if Wizards could mind control people without anybody noticing, why would anybody trust a Wizard?

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is why Charm spells have the clause that the target doesn't realize you tried to charm them on a success. Casting spells is LOUD and OBVIOUS for a reason. Spellcasting should always be obvious, even to blind or deaf characters. Making Psychic spellcasting completely silent will essentially give them Silent Spell for free, without the wasted action. They are already getting a minor mechanical advantage by not having to speak when casting, so eliminating the sound all together is too good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Manifestations are the thing that happen while the spell is coalescing, however it is you do it. They're sort of necessary to have a world where both "magic is relatively common" and "magic users are neither in charge of everything nor held to tremendous scrutiny by everybody around them."

Like if Wizards could mind control people without anybody noticing, why would anybody trust a Wizard?

What makes you think anybody does? :-)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Casting spells is LOUD and OBVIOUS for a reason.

What reason?


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Casting spells is LOUD and OBVIOUS for a reason.
What reason?

Balance.

Continuity.


Ravingdork wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Casting spells is LOUD and OBVIOUS for a reason.
What reason?

Balance.

Continuity.

Shenanigans, especially while invisible.

Much like how spells need a distinct hole to cast through, when in the olden days there'd be casters using peepholes (generally enemies, but that opened it up for PCs too.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Like if Wizards could mind control people without anybody noticing, why would anybody trust a Wizard?

4th level invis and Silent Spell would let them do this.

Remember, its not the Wizard you can see thats the problem, its all the Wizards you can't.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I guess the "balance" argument is that casters are too powerful if nobody knows they're casting until the fireball explodes. I suppose that's fair enough.

"Continuity" I don't get.

As for "distinct hole", a peephole *is* a distinct hole so I don't understand the point.

"Shenanigans, especially while invisible" I suppose is the balance argument.

"Bring not the scorn of the Kvikîr [ordinary folk] upon thy brothers, nor make with thyne art a place for thyself above them." -- First Law of the Shèk-Pvâr


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
As for "distinct hole", a peephole *is* a distinct hole so I don't understand the point.

He probably means this:

Line of effect wrote:

Line of effect

You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid. If you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.

So, unless a peephole is 1-foot-square size...


Generally Line of Effect requires a one foot square opening:

Line of Effect wrote:
f you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:


"Continuity" I don't get.

Continuity of the world as we know it. Of the campaign story.

Elsewise everything quickly goes off the rails as player or NPC wizards conquer the world with near impunity.

Before 1st Edition errata'd* stealth casting away, one of my characters conquered half the known world in short order simply because nobody was aware they were a caster.

The other PCs actually murdered her, for fear of her growing power and influence. (The only known case of PvP in my 30 year roleplaying career.)

*:
It WAS an errata, not merelya clarification, and you will never convinceme otherwise.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Fair enough.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
one of my characters conquered half the known world in short order simply because nobody was aware they were a caster.

Very fortuitous that they never ran into anyone with a single point in spellcraft.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Heh. One of the things that really stood out for me watching a Youtube series playthrough of "Menace Under Otari" was the fact that the GM only once (if that) asked for a Recall Knowledge check or for the PCs to identify treasure. He just dove right in and gave the info for free. I kept thinking "I would never do that" but I dunno. :-)


Ed Reppert wrote:
Heh. One of the things that really stood out for me watching a Youtube series playthrough of "Menace Under Otari" was the fact that the GM only once (if that) asked for a Recall Knowledge check or for the PCs to identify treasure. He just dove right in and gave the info for free. I kept thinking "I would never do that" but I dunno. :-)

Yeah when I run the BB I have all sorts of recall knowledge values scribbled everywhere for if the players show an interest. If time is of the essence I probably wouldn't insist on it for everything. I bet the YouTubers sped things up so viewers wouldn't get bored with the minutiae of play


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
one of my characters conquered half the known world in short order simply because nobody was aware they were a caster.
Very fortuitous that they never ran into anyone with a single point in spellcraft.

Ah, you must have come into the game after the stealth errata.

(Though there were some heretics that falsely claimed you could identify a spell being cast when there was nothing more than an intense stare to give it away.)

151 to 200 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Dark Archive errata thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.