| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question, with updated spells could we possibly get something like DnD’s version of prestidigation
That is, a cantrip that creates “harmless sensory effects” like sparkles or creating fake rain or making my character’s eyes glow or change color, or making something smell like roses or freshly baked pie
Stuff that would be amazing for role play, and especially for bards wanting to add theatrical effects to their performances, but otherwise doesn’t have mechanical effect
I get pathfinder is very tight with its rules, but I feel there should be things that allow for pure roleplay and flavor.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What GM are you playing with that doesn't allow role-play?
And why are you still playing with them?
I'm not sure we need to take up space with 'you can cast this spell with no mechanical effects'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What GM are you playing with that doesn't allow role-play?
And why are you still playing with them?
I'm not sure we need to take up space with 'you can cast this spell with no mechanical effects'.
CorvusMask and many others who have said they wouldn’t let you do that
PFS for sure won’t let you do that
Harmless sparkles or floral scents or fake rain in a 5x5 space while your bard performs a sad song isn’t covered by rules so PFS won’t allow it
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was talking about by the raw rather than whether I would allow it as gm though <_< I don't like being used as example here x'D
(and even it was more of "prestidigitation used to be catch all for all minor non mechanical effects" with me commenting that its unlikely that paizo directly add mechanics for non spell magical cosmetics because that's just something gm can or can not allow without needing permission from book)
If you are wanting a mechanical effect - even as much as being an Aid preparation action - I could see not allowing it to work.
But I am not sure that even a PFS GM would prevent you from casting the spell just purely for role-play.
If you are wanting a mechanical effect - even as much as being an Aid preparation action - I could see not allowing it to work.
But I am not sure that even a PFS GM would prevent you from casting the spell just purely for role-play.
It should still be added to prevent arguements
There are many GMs who won’t allow such a flavor thing because a lot of GMs are very deadset on only allowing what rules clearly say
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd like an illusion cantrip that does some of this stuff rather than overloading Prestidigitation further. Obviously magical to imprecise or better senses, don't obscure senses or apply modifiers, and can be intentionally believed. Something like that.
Personally, I'd like an illusion cantrip that does some of this stuff rather than overloading Prestidigitation further. Obviously magical to imprecise or better senses, don't obscure senses or apply modifiers, and can be intentionally believed. Something like that.
This would work too
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricks
I still don't think it is worth the printing space.
Pedantic GMs that shut down role-play are going to do so no matter what is written.
And Munchkins are going to use any permissive wording that they can get their hands on to try and get any available mechanical advantage possible.
The rules should be written for people who are playing the game in good faith. Trying to prevent toxic behavior from either side of the GM screen is going to be a futile effort and a waste of rules text space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricks
Not meaning any offense to you. You likely have the purest of role-play intentions.
But that immediately sets off my Munchkin detectors. Because as soon as that is written into the spell rules text, people are going to start claiming that they can use it a preparations for Aid or to otherwise gain a +1 circumstance bonus to their Perform checks or Diplomacy checks.
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricksNot meaning any offense to you. You likely have the purest of role-play intentions.
But that immediately sets off my Munchkin detectors. Because as soon as that is written into the spell rules text, people are going to start claiming that they can use it a preparations for Aid or to otherwise gain a +1 circumstance bonus to their Perform checks or Diplomacy checks.
Okay. So maybe it clarifies specifically “no mechanically benefit”
Though honestly a cantrip that has harmless sensory effects that lets you get a +1 bonus to performance checks as a result of using things like sparkles or fake rain in a 5x5 space sounds really cool and would fit the bard well. But I don’t think that’s necessary
Thought I think this new cantrip should be in all spell lists
Fake rain and floral scents fit both bards and Druids, and maybe all casters
Sparkles fit wizards and bards
Glowing eyes fit clerics
Etc etc
Personally, I'd like an illusion cantrip that does some of this stuff rather than overloading Prestidigitation further. Obviously magical to imprecise or better senses, don't obscure senses or apply modifiers, and can be intentionally believed. Something like that.This would work too
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricks
I will say, there's a certain satisfaction to be achieved in finding ways to make those things happen with existing spells. If I want to have a character sparkle in earnest, I'll probably use Illusory Disguise for "my character, but sparkly". When my Illusionist wants to do casual magical effects, they use Illusory Creature of themselves while invisible, or turns an object invisible beforehand and hits themselves with it to dispel the invisibility.
In a home game with a stickler GM, you can propose spell research to make the spell, allowing it to be a more unique trick.
It's fine to propose the addition to Paizo, but don't expect the same sort of official response to "here's something I want changed" that you would get to "here's a question I have about an upcoming change that was announced".
A pound of air is a non-magical object that could be flavored. And water drops are a crude mundane object that could be created to soil/clean someone's clothes.
A pound of air is a non-magical object that could be flavored. And water drops are a crude mundane object that could be created to soil/clean someone's clothes.
But only to soil or clean
Can’t have a bard create fake rain around them as they perform a sad song
I was talking about by the raw rather than whether I would allow it as gm though <_< I don't like being used as example here x'D
(and even it was more of "prestidigitation used to be catch all for all minor non mechanical effects" with me commenting that its unlikely that paizo directly add mechanics for non spell magical cosmetics because that's just something gm can or can not allow without needing permission from book)
You’re right, that was a little rude of me. I didn’t mean for it to be like that. I apologize.
You seem like a really cool person. You have discord? Would love to add you as a friend if so
|
That's very specific. And why such a specific area?
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricksNot meaning any offense to you. You likely have the purest of role-play intentions.
But that immediately sets off my Munchkin detectors. Because as soon as that is written into the spell rules text, people are going to start claiming that they can use it a preparations for Aid or to otherwise gain a +1 circumstance bonus to their Perform checks or Diplomacy checks.
That... sounds like a pretty inoffensive description for an Aid check? I'm not sure what the problem is. Aid doesn't require a spell at all.
That... sounds like a pretty inoffensive description for an Aid check? I'm not sure what the problem is. Aid doesn't require a spell at all.
Yeah, I would agree with that. And I would probably allow it to work in a lot of cases.
I just don't want to be the GM getting put into a position where the players start demanding it of me. Being allowed to use a spellcasting bonus roll instead of a skill check for Aid - to Aid pretty much any social skill - can also be seen as a bit too much.
|
|
I'd probably call for a tradition skill roll rather than an attack roll, although that turns it into an advantage for some characters and a drawback for others (I was going to say "classes," but that can vary within a class for Witches and Psychics) so it might be the wrong call.
And I dunno about any social check. Casting spells while someone is using Diplomacy or lying may cancel out the bonus at best.
But still, while a neat idea I don’t think it should be included. Best to keep the flavorful fun magic away from heavy mechanics
Using it could be a way to describe a performance check like dancing or playing an instrument, but it most likely shouldn’t give any bonuses
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH never really understood why Paizo nerfed Presti going into PF2 anyways.
More flavorful but ultimately low impact uses of magic are a good thing, imo.
Though it does run into conflict with how limited cantrip slots are and how those slots compete with legitimately important combat effects as well. Not sure how to best handle that. It feels bad to lose out on mechanically relevant stuff for flavor options, and it feels bad to not have those flavor options because you picked something mechanically relevant. Making more cantrips to fill that space would make it even tighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm inclined to just let players do whatever they want when it doesn't really relate to success or failure at a given task. So like "I'm going to make the firelight flicker dramatically with magic" as scene-setting is a thing I don't need a rule or a spell to allow to happen. Much like how I wouldn't question why a character with thievery and performance can juggle or do card tricks.
Yeah, just un-nerf Prestidigitation. It'd be a show of good faith to us who got annoyed that it got nerfed for no reason in the first place.
Yeah, just un-nerf Prestidigitation. It'd be a show of good faith to us who got annoyed that it got nerfed for no reason in the first place.
Not just that, add things to it
We don’t get increasing cantrip amount like in other TRRPGs. Locking sensory effects behind another cantrip would make it harder for us rp focused players
Add the ability to make sparkles, or illusionary rain in a 5x5 space, or glowing eyes, or floral scents, with that cantrip
Treat the cantrip as it is: a flavor rp spell, not something that has mechanical use
My request is that I would like Paizo to find an opportunity to include the word "prestidigitation" somewhere in the new game. I don't care where. I learned to pronounce that stupid word; I demand the chance to show it off.
Oh, also, I kind of like the idea of a nerf to prestidigitation. I don't like it when prestidigitation replaces so much of what would otherwise be done in more interesting roleplay scenes. I think they should remove prestidigitation's ability to flavor food and remove its ability to clean stuff up. Make adventurers explain when they find time to take a bath and how they got ahold of that salt and pepper. The sparkles were fine, though. You can bring those back. Nothing else.
You can tell it's not really a new edition because I'm not banging on the walls with my "make light and dancing lights first-level spells" take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricksNot meaning any offense to you. You likely have the purest of role-play intentions.
But that immediately sets off my Munchkin detectors. Because as soon as that is written into the spell rules text, people are going to start claiming that they can use it a preparations for Aid
For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with this much. "Preparations for Aid" are deliberately extremely vaguely-defined. By the rules, you don't even always necessarily have to spend an action at all to prepare an Aid reaction. Aid preparation seems to be intended to be extremely "player's creativity, GM's call".
I don't have anything against an illusion spell or cantrip being stated to be able to generate minor effects like this in addition to its normal effects. PF2 does have a lot of "this is mostly just for flavor" rules text in it, it's just pretty scattered. It wouldn't ruin any precedent. I'm not that invested in it, though, since I don't play PFS and I don't play private games with GMs who look for excuses to start arguments.
EDIT: Oh, I see that you agree there's not a huge problem with it. Well, anyhoo. Yeah, I'd probably ask for a relevant skill check or spellcasting modifier check for the actual Aid check. The way I see it, the whole point of the "preparation" is just to justify the skill you want to use to Aid, the same way players love to scramble to justify why, if you think about it, they should really get to use Occultism for Initiative just this once.
Which is fine. I love stuff like that. I also do love to say no to it, but game design that encourages players to try to be creative and roleplay to optimize their characters in the game? I'm okay with that.
Just something to allow bards to really amp up their performances or for wizards to just do fun little magic tricksNot meaning any offense to you. You likely have the purest of role-play intentions.
But that immediately sets off my Munchkin detectors. Because as soon as that is written into the spell rules text, people are going to start claiming that they can use it a preparations for Aid
For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with this much. "Preparations for Aid" are deliberately extremely vaguely-defined. By the rules, you don't even always necessarily have to spend an action at all to prepare an Aid reaction. Aid preparation seems to be intended to be extremely "player's creativity, GM's call".
I don't have anything against an illusion spell or cantrip being stated to be able to generate minor effects like this in addition to its normal effects. PF2 does have a lot of "this is mostly just for flavor" rules text in it, it's just pretty scattered. It wouldn't ruin any precedent. I'm not that invested in it, though, since I don't play PFS and I don't play private games with GMs who look for excuses to start arguments.
EDIT: Oh, I see that you agree there's not a huge problem with it. Well, anyhoo. Yeah, I'd probably ask for a relevant skill check or spellcasting modifier check for the actual Aid check. The way I see it, the whole point of the "preparation" is just to justify the skill you want to use to Aid, the same way players love to scramble to justify why, if you think about it, they should really get to use Occultism for Initiative just this once.
Which is fine. I love stuff like that. I also do love to say no to it, but game design that encourages players to try to be creative and roleplay to optimize their characters in the game? I'm okay with that.
Maybe, but if it increases the chances of fun things like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 space or glowing eyes or floral scents to be produced with prestidigitation by not having mechanical bonuses, I think that’s fine
I don’t think having mechanical benefits is a good idea, because inevitably that’s going to lead to restrictions, which kind of goes against the reason me and others want this: flavorful freedom
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want flavorful freedom, just exert it. There's literally nothing stopping a dhampir player from saying they sparkle in the sunlight except the GM saying "I'd rather you not", which you would have to respect regardless of whether it's in the rules. A GM can always nix a spell or feat, after all.
Rules text should have rules effects, even if it's just "this effect seems useless, but maybe you could put it to use if you're clever". To put it another way, a player should not be punished by the rules for wanting flavorful options, and that's what "you have to spend a cantrip slot to get a totally mechanically useless cantrip" does.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For my two pennies, I'd rather prestidigitation and spells of that nature be removed entirely. Just make it a skill check (or check using your spell attack modifier) to produce these minor effects.
Mostly because I'm strongly in favor of more skill based magical effects, but also I would like stuff along those lines to just be something any magic user be able to do, without needing to spend a cantrip slot.
For my two pennies, I'd rather prestidigitation and spells of that nature be removed entirely. Just make it a skill check (or check using your spell attack modifier) to produce these minor effects.
Mostly because I'm strongly in favor of more skill based magical effects, but also I would like stuff along those lines to just be something any magic user be able to do, without needing to spend a cantrip slot.
Eh, idk
Having rules outright say you can create flavorful harmless sensory effects like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 space or glowing eyes or floral scents without any mechanical effect outside of NPCs noticing it without needing to take up a cantrip slot would be great
But it shouldn’t require a check, what if I want my character to throw up sparkles for the hell of it? It doesn’t have any mechanical effect, why require a roll?
Me:“My character introduces himself by making his eyes glow and creating sparkles behind him”
GM: “roll a check”
Me: *Nat1*
GM: “Sorry, screw your flavorful and non mechanical cool character introduction to the player party, no magical effects happen”
-
Another example
-
Me: “My character will create sparkles to the left”
Gm: “make a check”
Me: “my character will create sparkles to the right”
Gm: “make a Check”
Me: “my character will create sparkles in front of him”
GM: “make a check”
Me: “stop making me roll checks!!!!”
-
Requiring checks for something that has no mechanical impact and has the sole purpose of enhancing RP would be redundant, unfun and meaningless
Completely missing the point but uh, if you don’t wanna roll dice this is maybe not the best game for you.
I want to roll dice for ability checks, attack rolls and damage
Not for things that have little to no mechanical effect and are just flavor
*sad Wild Magic noises*
?
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
CorvusMask and many others who have said they wouldn’t let you do thatPFS for sure won’t let you do that
Harmless sparkles or floral scents or fake rain in a 5x5 space while your bard performs a sad song isn’t covered by rules so PFS won’t allow it
Its already been said to you by many people, many times, but once more; I strongly recommend you actually play some Pathfinder Society before continuing to try and tell people authoritatively how it works in all sorts of fashions, or what GMs do and do not allow in their games. In the kindest light it comes off as repeated misunderstanding and not paying attention when informed better, in another less kind light, it looks like actively trying to spread misinformation and drive people away from Society.
And once again, as has been also mentioned repeatedly, calling out what individuals who have had conversations elsewhere have said as 'evidence' for or against the points you are trying to make is at best rude, at worst harassment (let alone doing so in a way that inaccurately portrays what people have said).
I can and have ruled Prestidigitation does things like that, and have even gone as far as just letting someone roll Arcana to do some sparkly effects with whatever cantrips they had available at the time. It's not a big deal.
In the games I GM I just let my spellcasters do any magical effect they want as long as it has no mechanical impact on the game. I think a lot of players and GMs in PF2e are under the impression that a character sheet is permissive/restrictive - as in the only things your character can do are the things on their sheet when this isn't the case. Obviously this doesn't cover society play, but I feel like this should almost just be written into that system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having rules outright say you can create flavorful harmless sensory effects like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 space or glowing eyes or floral scents without any mechanical effect outside of NPCs noticing it without needing to take up a cantrip slot would be great
The problem is that those same GMs that don't already let you do those things aren't going to be any different if we change Prestidigitation to include that list of effects - even if only by example.
The first line of the spell description is:
The simplest magic does your bidding. You can perform simple magical effects for as long as you Sustain the Spell.
And the last line is:
Prestidigitation can't deal damage or cause adverse conditions. Any actual change to an object (beyond what is noted above) persists only as long as you Sustain the Spell.
Both of those - especially that last line - indicate that this short bullet point list in between are the only mechanical effects that the spell can produce, but the spell can do other non-mechanical things as the GM allows.
If the GM doesn't allow that, then changing the bullet point list to give those four effects (sparkles, glowing eyes, illusory rain in a 5x5 area, and floral scents) would only give you those four effects. The GM would still shut down creating a stinky scent since it isn't a floral scent. And no creating illusory hail since that isn't rain. You can't change the color of your hair. You can't animate four sock puppets as part of telling a story....
It never ends.
CorvusMask and many others who have said they wouldn’t let you do thatPFS for sure won’t let you do that
Harmless sparkles or floral scents or fake rain in a 5x5 space while your bard performs a sad song isn’t covered by rules so PFS won’t allow it
Its already been said to you by many people, many times, but once more; I strongly recommend you actually play some Pathfinder Society before continuing to try and tell people authoritatively how it works in all sorts of fashions, or what GMs do and do not allow in their games. In the kindest light it comes off as repeated misunderstanding and not paying attention when informed better, in another less kind light, it looks like actively trying to spread misinformation and drive people away from Society.
And once again, as has been also mentioned repeatedly, calling out what individuals who have had conversations elsewhere have said as 'evidence' for or against the points you are trying to make is at best rude, at worst harassment (let alone doing so in a way that inaccurately portrays what people have said).
I asked in an organized play discord in a rule questions channel
The answer was no
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
CorvusMask and many others who have said they wouldn’t let you do thatPFS for sure won’t let you do that
Harmless sparkles or floral scents or fake rain in a 5x5 space while your bard performs a sad song isn’t covered by rules so PFS won’t allow it
Its already been said to you by many people, many times, but once more; I strongly recommend you actually play some Pathfinder Society before continuing to try and tell people authoritatively how it works in all sorts of fashions, or what GMs do and do not allow in their games. In the kindest light it comes off as repeated misunderstanding and not paying attention when informed better, in another less kind light, it looks like actively trying to spread misinformation and drive people away from Society.
And once again, as has been also mentioned repeatedly, calling out what individuals who have had conversations elsewhere have said as 'evidence' for or against the points you are trying to make is at best rude, at worst harassment (let alone doing so in a way that inaccurately portrays what people have said).
I asked in an organized play discord in a rule questions channel
The answer was no
This is a lie.
The answer was as follows:
If this question was "will some little scene like this with no mechanical impact be ok at a table?" it is largely gonna be "Ask your GM" without having some specific ability to do so.If you try to make it a universally applicable rules question "can I guarantee that I can do this at every table?" then the answer would be no, without some specific ability, because no one is going around distributing pamphlets to every GM saying "these are the exact limits of what you should accept as minor flavor descriptions, and this is where you demand RAW backing."
But, with the context of the forum threads and multiple discussions you've already created asking this exact question on different discord servers, it seems like this might be asking "but what is the PFS stance on this?" And the answer to that is "no, there isn't some campaign-wide uniform answer to minor stuff like that, and likely never will be (and shouldn't be)"
That tells you to accept that GMs will make rulings instead of looking for a "universally yes, at every table forever".
CorvusMask and many others who have said they wouldn’t let you do thatPFS for sure won’t let you do that
Harmless sparkles or floral scents or fake rain in a 5x5 space while your bard performs a sad song isn’t covered by rules so PFS won’t allow it
Its already been said to you by many people, many times, but once more; I strongly recommend you actually play some Pathfinder Society before continuing to try and tell people authoritatively how it works in all sorts of fashions, or what GMs do and do not allow in their games. In the kindest light it comes off as repeated misunderstanding and not paying attention when informed better, in another less kind light, it looks like actively trying to spread misinformation and drive people away from Society.
And once again, as has been also mentioned repeatedly, calling out what individuals who have had conversations elsewhere have said as 'evidence' for or against the points you are trying to make is at best rude, at worst harassment (let alone doing so in a way that inaccurately portrays what people have said).
I asked in an organized play discord in a rule questions channel
The answer was no
This is a lie.
The answer was as follows:
...
If this question was "will some little scene like this with no mechanical impact be ok at a table?" it is largely gonna be "Ask your GM" without having some specific ability to do so.If you try to make it a universally applicable rules question "can I guarantee that I can do this at every table?" then the answer would be no, without some specific ability, because no one is going around distributing pamphlets to every GM saying "these are the exact limits of what you should accept as minor flavor descriptions, and this is where you demand RAW backing."
But, with the context of the forum threads and multiple discussions you've already created asking this
The answer I’m referring to was “If this question was "will some little scene like this with no mechanical impact be ok at a table?" it is largely gonna be <:ExpectTableVariation:889890925009059901> without having some specific ability to do so.
If you try to make it a *universally applicable rules question* "can I guarantee that I can do this at every table?" then the answer would be no, without some specific ability, because *no one is going around distributing pamphlets to every GM saying "these are the exact limits of what you should accept as minor flavor descriptions, and this is where you demand RAW backing."*”
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that "different GMs will make different rulings" is the same as "no" is a GROSS misrepresentation.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if it was not a gross misrepresentation, as one of the moderators of the server in question, our server shouldn't be used as a "source" to win internet points. Answer rule questions with your own understanding of the rules instead of trying to rely on someone else's authority, especially when misrepresenting their words.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what's bothering me here: There is no way to actually encode "you can do purely flavorful things" into the rules beyond what already exists by virtue of this being a make-believe game. It's just, definitively, not a rules concept.
I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again on this thread so I can be sure you'll see it: There is no way to make an illusion cantrip that has no mechanical effect. Either you can make people see/smell something or you can't. There are already minor sensory cantrips in PF2--ghost sound, musical accompaniment, dancing lights, light, and, oh, yeah prestidigitation. Those cantrips are the extent of the thing you're asking for Paizo to introduce. You can change flavors, create lights (the "sparkles" you're asking for), heat or cool material, manifest phantom noises or music, or change something's color.
All of these things are balanced. All of these things were chosen deliberately to represent the extent of cantrip mischief. They have mechanical effects that were measured to be "safe" to introduce.
You know what's not on there? A wild card "create any sort of illusion you want" cantrip. That's because that's not an effect you should be able to generate infinite times per day at first level. It's incredible versatility far beyond the scope of the spell, and there's no way to make it "harmless" or "purely flavorful" because the rules don't have a [flavor] tag (unfortunately for my Guy Fieri-inspired alchemist).
"Purely flavorful" is something only a GM can adjudicate, which is why it's always going to vary based on the game and situation. A GM might be okay with "an illusion of sparkles" in the context of a character introduction and not in the context of making an item look magical. A GM might be fine with you creating a floral "perfume" while flirting with the bartender but not while trying to hide from a bloodhound.
Could a 1st-grade "minor illusion" spell be fun and balanced? Maybe. It could be tricky; they got rid of Silent Image (which was a 1st-grade spell in PF1, by the way) for a reason. I do think a scent-based illusion that can be used to hide from Scent and disguise poisons could be great, and could absolutely be used for pure flavor. You should ask for that instead of asking for a prestidigitation buff.