| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to pages 76-77 the Lost Omens Travel Guide, we now know what to call the spellcasting manifestations of spellcasters: Spell Signatures.
They even have highly descriptive imagery and analysis of the runes and effects that accompany spell signatures which are apparently unique enough that someone familiar with a caster could use the signature to identify said caster even if they are hidden.
This only applies to the official Golarion campaign setting of course, but it's more than we've ever had to go off of on the matter before.
What do you think of this revelation?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Truly terrible. Signature Spells are a thing after all.
Nomenclature confusion++
Truly terrible. Signature Spells are a thing after all.
Nomenclature confusion++
LOL. I didn't even think of that. Man. Yeah. That's an "oopsie" for sure.
Definitely not ideal, though I'm not sure what it should have been instead. And there's a certain logic which might help for mnemonic devices: your signature spell is a spell you're well known for, but your spell signature is how you sign every spell.
I think it's bad to call it spell signatures when we already have signature spells, however I'm happy that it's been codified that each spell caster has manifestations specific to them and that someone familiar with an individuals spell casting could identify them by the manifestations.
That's the kind of flavor I love in a setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's bad to call it spell signatures when we already have signature spells, however I'm happy that it's been codified that each spell caster has manifestations specific to them and that someone familiar with an individuals spell casting could identify them by the manifestations.
That's the kind of flavor I love in a setting.
Strikes me ess as flavor and more as a hard coded mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's bad to call it spell signatures when we already have signature spells, however I'm happy that it's been codified that each spell caster has manifestations specific to them and that someone familiar with an individuals spell casting could identify them by the manifestations.
That's the kind of flavor I love in a setting.
Yes it is a good thing. I've seen it in other games before and it makes a lot of sense and can help some characterisation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, it's flavor.
On the other hand, I kind of like how the term is inverted from the mechanical use of those words so it is almost fitting. Flip the words around and it goes from being something represented in real terms for the game itself to being something with no mechanical representation at all but only exists for the purpose of adding a bit of seasoning to the setting.
They COULD have gone with something a bit more distinct, especially if they were keeping non-English translations of the books in mind since word order inversion IS a thing that some languages have linguistic rules for and associated meanings, but it's not terrible.
Strikes me ess as flavor and more as a hard coded mechanic.I think it's bad to call it spell signatures when we already have signature spells, however I'm happy that it's been codified that each spell caster has manifestations specific to them and that someone familiar with an individuals spell casting could identify them by the manifestations.
That's the kind of flavor I love in a setting.
We could debate this back and forth, but in my mind they're not specifying what the manifestation look like so it's not a "hard coded mechanic" as much as a statement of "manifestation exist and they're unique to the character". Which I agree is a rules mechanic, but it's a rule to support flavor more than something like "you get 10 hp + con mod per level as a fighter".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do does that mean that if a character is wearing a disguise, or is a doppelganger, and they impersonate a spell caster, and cast a spell that they both know, then someone could identify that the caster's spell is not the caster they are used to casting the spell before them?
It seems like this, even if generally said as being a fluff, would have mechanical impact. (even if it would be, after casting a spell you have to re-roll your bluff check for your disguise) For instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do does that mean that if a character is wearing a disguise, or is a doppelganger, and they impersonate a spell caster, and cast a spell that they both know, then someone could identify that the caster's spell is not the caster they are used to casting the spell before them?
It seems like this, even if generally said as being a fluff, would have mechanical impact. (even if it would be, after casting a spell you have to re-roll your bluff check for your disguise) For instance.
Someone could yes, but you would likely need to be very familiar with the individual's spell casting signatures.
I imagine it being a bit like instantly recognizing someone's handwriting, how many people could you do that for?
Same issue for recognizing spell signatures.
Do does that mean that if a character is wearing a disguise, or is a doppelganger, and they impersonate a spell caster, and cast a spell that they both know, then someone could identify that the caster's spell is not the caster they are used to casting the spell before them?
It seems like this, even if generally said as being a fluff, would have mechanical impact. (even if it would be, after casting a spell you have to re-roll your bluff check for your disguise) For instance.
Someone could yes, but you would likely need to be very familiar with the individual's spell casting signatures.
I imagine it being a bit like instantly recognizing someone's handwriting, how many people could you do that for?
Same issue for recognizing spell signatures.
We have no data upon which to measure how fine or obvious said signatures are. It may be analogous to handwriting, which is kinda dependent on the eccentricity of the signer as much as the reader's knowledge; or it may be "JOE WAS HERE!" or "Here's your puzzle you need to unravel in seconds before the impression fades". Who knows...
Well, the GM once they take into consideration the narrative they're telling. For Hack n' Slash it's irrelevant, but for an ongoing City Politics game it'd become pivotal, and something the devious in all factions will have accounted for.I'm reminded of 3.X/PF1 (can't remember which) where devs gave an example for Web, how a Drow version might include manifestations of spiders weaving it while another tradition might spew slime and others might use ropes and tethers. All have the same mechanical effect of course, yet would have distinct flavors/skins. I imagine PF2's individual Spell Signatures to be somewhat like that, but even more particular to the caster, not just their source.
And then there are items.
Does a Sorcerer using a scroll to cast a spell outside their repertoire imprint their same signature? Is it spell agnostic? What if they cast from an MCD, a whole different tradition? If distinct signatures appear in such a broad range of spells, it'd seem to be Nethys tweaking it so or some universal aspect to magic (which Starfinder's blending of traditions would support!).
It seems like this, even if generally said as being a fluff, would have mechanical impact.
Exactly.
I imagine it being a bit like instantly recognizing someone's handwriting, how many people could you do that for?
Same issue for recognizing spell signatures.
"Why does your magic look green and bubbly today? Isn't it usually red and spiked with anger and brimstone?"
"I have a cold. It's effecting my magic."
That might work Ravingdork, with a bluff check and assuming your GM agrees that magic works that way in their universe.
You see, while Paizo has given us a rule that "magic has unique spell signatures that you could use to identify a caster" but the exact details aren't stated.
That means your group/GM can hash out those details as they like. It might mean that diseases, on even conscious effort could alter what they look like.
Perhaps a low level feat would let you alter the appearance of your signatures. And perhaps with additional investment in deception you could even attempt to make it appear as another.
I see this as a wonderful beautiful thing, where a GM can make up all sorts of neat things. Most spell casters wouldn't bother to hide their signatures, but a level 2 feat to do so for the right character sounds right to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost certainly the Impersonate action would already cover imitating someone else's spell signature or hiding your own, since it already handles things like voice or even supernatural aspects of one's appearance (i.e. Impersonate is still the correct action for a human to disguise themselves as a conrasu, it's just a harder check at GM's discretion).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love this inclusion and think Spell signatures is plenty different from signature spells. Which word is the actual noun and which is the adjective is rather significant.
I think conceal spell probably already covers hiding your spell signature so that it can't be traced back to you, after all, you haven't concealed a spell well if it's signature is still identifiable.
I agree with MaxAstro as well that it is probably just another aspect of impersonating another person, and should just get a hard modifier.
Deception is an incredibly underrated skill for casters and I am glad to see the narrative of spell casting getting some additional love in the Lost Omen line.
Almost certainly the Impersonate action would already cover imitating someone else's spell signature or hiding your own, since it already handles things like voice or even supernatural aspects of one's appearance (i.e. Impersonate is still the correct action for a human to disguise themselves as a conrasu, it's just a harder check at GM's discretion).
I hadn't thought of it in that context, but I suppose I would agree.
Although as a GM, I would probably create more specific rules for my game if it came up.
I think conceal spell probably already covers hiding your spell signature so that it can't be traced back to you, after all, you haven't concealed a spell well if it's signature is still identifiable.I agree with MaxAstro as well that it is probably just another aspect of impersonating another person, and should just get a hard modifier.
Deception is an incredibly underrated skill for casters and I am glad to see the narrative of spell casting getting some additional love in the Lost Omen line.
I think conceal spell should as you suggest, conceal signatures. However, I wouldn't let it necessarily imitate someone else's.
Though perhaps for my home rules I would say if you have conceal spell, and are an expert in deception you can make a deception check to disguise your spell signatures as someone else's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're great. I love them. Amusingly while reading the thing, the thought of signature spells never even passed my mind.