| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like "Witch's Tone". I actually think that's very evocative--it could be an inhuman screech, like L4D2's "witch", or an eerie nursery rhyme, or a mysterious chant, or an animalistic howl, or you and your familiar trading voices so it can horrifically "speak" using your vocal cords, or even a Shepard's Tone-style whistle.
I think that's the first suggestion I like better than Cackle itself, in terms of "witchy flavor that inspires more ideas".
This is all with the disclaimer that I really don't think this issue matters at all, of course.
|
The biggest drawback of making it a base class feature is you have to choose stainable spells to use it. If you don't have those spells it is a waste of time to have. The name itself I don't think is a problem. What spells you pick is much more important than what sounds your character makes when using a feat.
Name wise, the cackle feat doesn't require you to say the name of the feat in character when you use it. It never says you have to cackle. The feat could be called "sustain spell with verbal gestures" or "Tim" and still work the same.
The description says "You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter." You can flavor that laughter differently each time you use it if you like, to fit the spell and situation. Flavor wise the laughter could be taunting or encouraging the spell to sustain. If your character doesn't like to laugh or has a dry sense of humor, you could use a sarcastic laugh. You could be giggling to your patron or any other type of laughter you can come up with. Does the laughter even have to be laughter?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A little depressed but not very surprised to see the amount of, "The way you have played the game in the past is both stupid and obviously wrong to anybody else" in this thread, particularly when the question is of whether and how much the flavour-as-written matters, and whether flavour could be more inclusive without diluting it.
I know I cannot say when I started GMing as far back as 3.5e that I would have immediately known that the flavour text of an ability themed around laughter should obviously include any kind of sound the character could produce. In fact, looking back at how important the game's flavour was to me at the time, I'm sure I can absolutely say that I would have been the GM described here as, for all intents and purposes, irredeemably bad and not worth sitting at a table with.
It has been many years since then and I have long since learned how effective it is to apply a new flavour to an old mechanic to spice it up, but one thing that remains true is that I care deeply about the flavour and tone of the game. I delight in the fact that witches have the ability to unleash a devious cackle as a supernatural power, and it's more than good enough for me that it's a feat any which could choose, but to see so many deride someone for presuming that an ability named Cackle might be restricted to laughter, and that no real GM could ever make that mistake is more than a little disheartening.
I know we are all very worked up with the discussions regarding the Remaster project, and very on our guard about what kind of changes we do and don't want to see in the game, but is this really the hill we want to kill on?
|
No, it started over whether a GM who looks at cackle and says "I think you have to laugh, actually. Sorry." Is inherently a bad GM. You said it makes them a bad GM here:
Thats not what you said, as you later quote what you said via my post.
“I’d like to let you, but the book says this and I the GM cannot overrule the book” (paraphrasing the last bit) is bad GMing. Not the refusal to reflavor, but saying you would like to but then declaring the book won’t let you, the GM, reflavor and therefore it’s the book’s fault when you just didn’t want to reflavor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the 10 years or so of Society I have played I can't think of a single GM who demanded a Witch character had to cackle, simple thematic changes that involve zero mechanical, or drastic alteration are absolutely fine in Society (yes, your tiefling can even be whatever colour you like!). I've seen witches cackle, laugh joyously, chant softly, call out prayers, and on and on. What I've never seen is some hypothetical GM call out all the demands that some people seem to think they do.
Been over 20 years for me, and I've never encountered one.
Not one.
In society I even have a kobold chef wielding cutlery: forked bipod for a fork, a sap for a spoon, a dagger for a kitchen knife, a club for a rolling pin, a mace for a ladle, and a sling and bullets as a dirty kitchen towel.
Even with the existence of improvised weapons no GM has stopped me from this flavor change, imposed penalties, or said that I needed to be using improvised weapons instead.
Point being, even Society GMs are more permissive than dismissive. They kinda have to be as representatives of a growing hobby. You do t grow the player base by being rigid and inflexible when it comes to allowing people to realize their fantasy character concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the 10 years or so of Society I have played I can't think of a single GM who demanded a Witch character had to cackle, simple thematic changes that involve zero mechanical, or drastic alteration are absolutely fine in Society (yes, your tiefling can even be whatever colour you like!). I've seen witches cackle, laugh joyously, chant softly, call out prayers, and on and on. What I've never seen is some hypothetical GM call out all the demands that some people seem to think they do.Been over 20 years for me, and I've never encountered one.
Not one.
In society I even have a kobold chef wielding cutlery: forked bipod for a fork, a sap for a spoon, a dagger for a kitchen knife, a club for a rolling pin, a mace for a ladle, and a sling and bullets as a dirty kitchen towel.
Even with the existence of improvised weapons no GM has stopped me from this flavor change, imposed penalties, or said that I needed to be using improvised weapons instead.
Point being, even Society GMs are more permissive than dismissive. They kinda have to be as representatives of a growing hobby. You do t grow the player base by being rigid and inflexible when it comes to allowing people to realize their fantasy character concepts.
PFS is explicitly against bad GMs. The rules set limits to GMs over player characters and have an entire structure to complain or change GMs and stimulate players to GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I confess I don't think the issue of "can my witch chant instead of cackle" has come up at my lodge, but I believe the similar question of "can my 2e bard give a speech instead of sing?" Has and if I'm not mistaken the answer was no.
It probably hasn’t come up since currently cackle is optional and not a base class feature, meaning people whose witch characters wouldn’t make sense to cackle can just not take it
And if a bard can’t give a speech instead of singing, then your lodge is probably gonna rule a witch has to actually w oh laugh and can’t make any other verbal sound
All the more reason to either keep it as optional or if it must be part of the base class, change it to be “Witch’s Tone” or any other flavor friendly term
A grin can be Cackle.
Cackle has the Verbal trait. Grinning might be the only suggestion that does not work. But wait, it does not have the Auditory trait. This is getting weird. Is grinning sufficiently verbal? Thus far the only strict requirement seems to be that the Witch is able to speak and it is difficult to conceal as a spell. Nothing about the affected creature being able to hear or understand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should give it the linguistic trait, so if you're like, French laughing, non-french people don't understand.
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They almost universally don't, it can be hard to know when this is the case but I'd recommend against believing everything people say 'happens' in Pathfinder Society, sometimes you'll find they've never actually even played Society at all! In the 10 years or so of Society I have played I can't think of a single GM who demanded a Witch character had to cackle, simple thematic changes that involve zero mechanical, or drastic alteration are absolutely fine in Society (yes, your tiefling can even be whatever colour you like!). I've seen witches cackle, laugh joyously, chant softly, call out prayers, and on and on. What I've never seen is some hypothetical GM call out all the demands that some people seem to think they do.
Hear, hear!
Furthermore, I have seen Prestidigitation used to throw sparkles in the air in a PF2 Society game, and no one said 'Boo' about it. I am really tired of the Urban Legend that Society is filled with joyless and rigid Players and GMs who insist on RAW. I've seen all kinds of gentle reflavoring in Society games to make fun character concepts happen.
Hmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before I say anything else, I am shocked at how many of you tolerate such terrible inflexible GMing. Go find an actually good GM or start a group among your friends. You don't need to deal with terrible PuGs and power-tripping online GMs.
Secondly, I don't think Cackle is the right choice to build the Witch around. I'd much rather see patrons and their teachings take a more central role and things like cackling, familiars, and even hexes become active choices you make when figuring out what powers your patron has granted you.
Unfortunately for a lot of us, finding a different GM or even playing PF2e in person and not online isn’t an option. (Btw what does PuGs mean?). Not to mention PFS by its very nature is very inflexible and wouldn’t let someone use cackle without having their character actually cackle.
Unfortunately these GMs are the best we can settle on, so having rules be more flexible with flavor so GMs or maybe even other players can’t use it as a weapon against our character’s flavor through rules lawyering, is for the best
In an ideal world, people would be more flexible and the goal would be to make sure everyone has fun and that we can reflavor to our heart’s content, where rule 1 was indeed the make important rule to all GMs and players, where there wouldn’t be any rules lawyers jumping in and telling us that our witch has to actually cackle and can’t sing a haunting hymn or angelic singing because any other sound than “cackle” isn’t “RAW”, or them jumping in and saying our tiefling can only be red colored and can’t be purple or green, etc. In an ideal world, we can just lead a table and easily find a new table with a different GM but a lot of us can’t because this isn’t an ideal world. I have yet to find a pbp text campaign or a westmarch server that allows battlezoo despite me really wanting to use those books for my characters
I doubt it was Paizo’s intention to limit characters flavor but seeing that it’s caused issues Paizo should try to...
I've played and run a lot of society. I'm trying to picture a society GM saying "uh actually you didn't state your character made an auditory expression of a number of positive emotional states, such as joy, mirth, happiness, or relief and therefore you can't use Cackle" and I just can't. Society isn't a mythical boogeyman waiting to catch you in a rules straitjacket.
I really don't think they'd care about the Prestidigitation thing either.
In the 10 years or so of Society I have played I can't think of a single GM who demanded a Witch character had to cackle, simple thematic changes that involve zero mechanical, or drastic alteration are absolutely fine in Society (yes, your tiefling can even be whatever colour you like!). I've seen witches cackle, laugh joyously, chant softly, call out prayers, and on and on. What I've never seen is some hypothetical GM call out all the demands that some people seem to think they do.Been over 20 years for me, and I've never encountered one.
Not one.
In society I even have a kobold chef wielding cutlery: forked bipod for a fork, a sap for a spoon, a dagger for a kitchen knife, a club for a rolling pin, a mace for a ladle, and a sling and bullets as a dirty kitchen towel.
Even with the existence of improvised weapons no GM has stopped me from this flavor change, imposed penalties, or said that I needed to be using improvised weapons instead.
Point being, even Society GMs are more permissive than dismissive. They kinda have to be as representatives of a growing hobby. You do t grow the player base by being rigid and inflexible when it comes to allowing people to realize their fantasy character concepts.
I asked in a PFS discord in a rules questions channel about allowing things like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 area
The answer was no
They almost universally don't, it can be hard to know when this is the case but I'd recommend against believing everything people say 'happens' in Pathfinder Society, sometimes you'll find they've never actually even played Society at all! In the 10 years or so of Society I have played I can't think of a single GM who demanded a Witch character had to cackle, simple thematic changes that involve zero mechanical, or drastic alteration are absolutely fine in Society (yes, your tiefling can even be whatever colour you like!). I've seen witches cackle, laugh joyously, chant softly, call out prayers, and on and on. What I've never seen is some hypothetical GM call out all the demands that some people seem to think they do.Hear, hear!
Furthermore, I have seen Prestidigitation used to throw sparkles in the air in a PF2 Society game, and no one said 'Boo' about it. I am really tired of the Urban Legend that Society is filled with joyless and rigid Players and GMs who insist on RAW. I've seen all kinds of gentle reflavoring in Society games to make fun character concepts happen.
Hmm
Locking tieflings, iruxi/lizardfolk and Kitsune behind ACP doesn’t exactly help with that urban legend, but that’s besides the point
I suppose the urban legend isn’t entirely true, but the fact is it is more strict. Maybe not as strict as people make it out to be, but it is more strict
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked in a PFS discord in a rules questions channel about allowing things like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 area
The answer was no
As I mentioned in a different thread on this topic, asking this as a rules question in a generic manner with no context of what the intent is will set off people's Munchkin detectors.
They will think that you are trying to get a benefit added to the spell effects for 'flavor' reasons that you will turn around and try to exploit for mechanical benefit.
Munchkin: Can I use Prestidigitation to make it rain in a 5x5 area?
GM: I guess so. Sure.
Munchkin: Great, so that area is now slippery terrain since it is wet.
I asked in a PFS discord in a rules questions channel about allowing things like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 area
The answer was no
As I mentioned in a different thread on this topic, asking this as a rules question in a generic manner with no context of what the intent is will set off people's Munchkin detectors.
They will think that you are trying to get a benefit added to the spell effects for 'flavor' reasons that you will turn around and try to exploit for mechanical benefit.
Munchkin: Can I use Prestidigitation to make it rain in a 5x5 area?
GM: I guess so. Sure.
Munchkin: Great, so that area is now slippery terrain since it is wet.
That’s why I specified illusionary
It’s like a hologram of rain
Can’t make the floor wet if the rain ain’t real
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defining what kinds of illusions have "no mechanical benefit" seems like an utterly thankless task. An illusion of falling rain can be incredibly powerful if you're in a desert or fighting an enemy that is vulnerable to or healed by water. If Paizo had wanted to introduce a cantrip for creating minor illusions, they would have done so by now.
Also, you've successfully merged your two threads to the point that I can't tell them apart anymore - I tried to go to the other assuming it was where I just made this post.
A grin can be Cackle.Cackle has the Verbal trait. Grinning might be the only suggestion that does not work. But wait, it does not have the Auditory trait. This is getting weird. Is grinning sufficiently verbal? Thus far the only strict requirement seems to be that the Witch is able to speak and it is difficult to conceal as a spell. Nothing about the affected creature being able to hear or understand.
Verbal components for spells and abilities are comprised of two traits, Auditory and Concentrate. It would be redundant to list those traits when the intent is that the listing of Verbal assumes both of those traits are in play.
It would be as redundant as listing Magical on a trait with a spell that already has a tradition trait, like Arcane, for example.
So you still have a point of grinning technically not counting as a means of sustaining via Cackle.
Was the name 'cackle' this controversial in PF1?
(I don't remember that being the case, but the closest I ever got to playing a witch back then was a Hexcrafter Magus.)
Was the name 'cackle' this controversial in PF1?
(I don't remember that being the case, but the closest I ever got to playing a witch back then was a Hexcrafter Magus.)
I don’t think (keywords “don’t think”, I absolutely could be wrong) that it wasn’t the case because people are used to flavor restrictions such as barbarians only being allowed to be chaotic neutral or monks only being allowed to be lawful or assassins only allowed to be evil
But with PF2e that isn’t as flavor restrictive, and with people moving over from 5e or having experience with it, people are now starting to have issues with flavor restrictions
The TTRPG world has definitely changed to where flavor and reflavor is more commonplace
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a correction, barbarians were not forced to be chaotic neutral, only "any nonlawful".
A grin can be Cackle.Cackle has the Verbal trait. Grinning might be the only suggestion that does not work. But wait, it does not have the Auditory trait. This is getting weird. Is grinning sufficiently verbal? Thus far the only strict requirement seems to be that the Witch is able to speak and it is difficult to conceal as a spell. Nothing about the affected creature being able to hear or understand.Verbal components for spells and abilities are comprised of two traits, Auditory and Concentrate. It would be redundant to list those traits when the intent is that the listing of Verbal assumes both of those traits are in play.
It would be as redundant as listing Magical on a trait with a spell that already has a tradition trait, like Arcane, for example.
So you still have a point of grinning technically not counting as a means of sustaining via Cackle.
Clarification:
A verbal component is a vocalization of words of power. You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell. The spell gains the concentrate trait. You must be able to speak to provide this component.
From: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=284
I doesn't add the auditory trait:
Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM. This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can't hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound.
Cackle requires you are not silenced and make a sound, it does not require your target hear you
Verbal components for spells and abilities are comprised of two traits, Auditory and Concentrate. It would be redundant to list those traits when the intent is that the listing of Verbal assumes both of those traits are in play.
Where are you coming up with this? Serious question, not trying to be dismissive. That is just- hrmm. Let me put this another way. No one else can take a steamy, fresh out of the oven Hot Take and play it as a stone cold truth with the same casual ease that you can. Are you just bringing the pain or is this written down somewhere by Paizo? With great power comes great responsibility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not the first time I have been surprised to see that Verbal Components actually do not in fact have the Auditory trait. While it is clear they require the ability to speak in a strong voice, the trait was left off.
If I were to speculate, verbal components are not given the auditory trait to avoid confusion with auditory effects also requiring a target to hear the sounds produced. That confusion is yet produced speaks to the difficulty of synthesising complex interactions into a comprehensible system and the inevitability of finding a corner case
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you've got it, Sibelius.
A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it.
So, Auditory has specific meanings separate from a Verbal component.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked in a PFS discord in a rules questions channel about allowing things like sparkles or illusionary rain in a 5x5 area
The answer was no
For those watching at home, if you guessed ‘That was not actually the answer’ you get a point! If anyone truly is concerned enough it’s very easy to find the other thread this is addressed in.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was the name 'cackle' this controversial in PF1?
(I don't remember that being the case, but the closest I ever got to playing a witch back then was a Hexcrafter Magus.)
Cackle was specifically ruled in the FAQ as "Your character actually has to cackle, probably in a strong voice, akin to the volume and clarity necessary for verbal spell components." This means, by RAW, you HAD TO cackle [make a harsh, raucous laugh] each and every time you used Cackle.
You also couldn't be in a Silence, nor could the target.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had my witch player Ojou-sama laugh out loud every time on their turn, but that was because she wanted to!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A grin can be Cackle.Cackle has the Verbal trait. Grinning might be the only suggestion that does not work. But wait, it does not have the Auditory trait. This is getting weird. Is grinning sufficiently verbal? Thus far the only strict requirement seems to be that the Witch is able to speak and it is difficult to conceal as a spell. Nothing about the affected creature being able to hear or understand.Verbal components for spells and abilities are comprised of two traits, Auditory and Concentrate. It would be redundant to list those traits when the intent is that the listing of Verbal assumes both of those traits are in play.
It would be as redundant as listing Magical on a trait with a spell that already has a tradition trait, like Arcane, for example.
So you still have a point of grinning technically not counting as a means of sustaining via Cackle.
Clarification:
A verbal component is a vocalization of words of power. You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell. The spell gains the concentrate trait. You must be able to speak to provide this component.From: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=284
I doesn't add the auditory trait:
Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM. This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can't hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound.Cackle requires you are not silenced and make a sound, it does not require your target hear you
Interesting; I would have assumed that a Verbal component, which outright states you need to be able to speak clearly/strongly, would have the Auditory trait, since it's required for you to speak to cast the spell.
It doesn't make much sense then for an effect like Silence to outright deny it to work, if the ability for it to produce sound does not matter in terms of ensuring its effect takes place.
The target makes no sound, preventing creatures from noticing it using hearing alone. The target can't use sonic attacks, nor can it use actions with the auditory trait. This prevents it from casting spells that include verbal components.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verbal components for spells and abilities are comprised of two traits, Auditory and Concentrate. It would be redundant to list those traits when the intent is that the listing of Verbal assumes both of those traits are in play.Where are you coming up with this? Serious question, not trying to be dismissive. That is just- hrmm. Let me put this another way. No one else can take a steamy, fresh out of the oven Hot Take and play it as a stone cold truth with the same casual ease that you can. Are you just bringing the pain or is this written down somewhere by Paizo? With great power comes great responsibility.
It was partly assumption, but it was shown upthread that spell components add traits to it, meaning the idea that it has to list traits explicitly when it says a spell component was debunked.
Of course, this was me assuming that a spell being cast with Verbal components would have the Auditory trait, since you need to be able to speak to cast a spell with Verbal components; if you lacked the ability to do so (such as by being Deaf and failing the flat check, for example), the spell would simply not come into existence. However, apparently Verbal components only have Concentrate, not Auditory, so on that front, I was mistaken.
**EDIT** That being said, if Cackle in PF2 still has a Verbal component, it would still require speaking in a strong voice. If you were gagged or deaf, for example, it would mean you have the potential to not succeed at the action.
Was the name 'cackle' this controversial in PF1?
(I don't remember that being the case, but the closest I ever got to playing a witch back then was a Hexcrafter Magus.)
Cackle was specifically ruled in the FAQ as "Your character actually has to cackle, probably in a strong voice, akin to the volume and clarity necessary for verbal spell components." This means, by RAW, you HAD TO cackle [make a harsh, raucous laugh] each and every time you used Cackle.
You also couldn't be in a Silence, nor could the target.
So it’s not even up to GM interpretation. You have to actually cackle
And this FAQ means you can’t reflavor cackle in PFS
All the more reason to even change it or NOT make it a baseline witch feature/ability
Mind linking the FAQ answer btw?
Was the name 'cackle' this controversial in PF1?
(I don't remember that being the case, but the closest I ever got to playing a witch back then was a Hexcrafter Magus.)
Cackle was specifically ruled in the FAQ as "Your character actually has to cackle, probably in a strong voice, akin to the volume and clarity necessary for verbal spell components." This means, by RAW, you HAD TO cackle [make a harsh, raucous laugh] each and every time you used Cackle.
You also couldn't be in a Silence, nor could the target.
So it’s not even up to GM interpretation. You have to actually cackle
And this FAQ means you can’t reflavor cackle in PFS
All the more reason to even change it or NOT make it a baseline witch feature/ability
Mind linking the FAQ answer btw?
Took me a bit of Google-fu, but I found a link to the relevant FAQ here. Seems pretty clear that the FAQ was mostly stating that Cackle had Verbal spell components and still had to fulfill them, meaning things like silent prayers or humming wouldn't count as being enough to fulfill the relevant component, and I can agree with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A point of confusion that may be creeping in here: I understood that FAQ to be regarding the PF1 hex, not relevant to the PF2 focus spell, and intended to demonstrated that there is a precedent for abilities titled 'cackle' to be considered exclusive to loud laughter.
So far as I know, no such official restriction exists in 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People asked if there was controversy with Cackle in PF1 to see if there was some historical issues with it, and it was stated that it was; all I did was provide evidence to prove that point.
Obviously, what PF1 rules are doesn't matter for PF2, but that doesn't mean you need to be misunderstanding of what the tangent was about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for the record, Cackle in PF2 has Verbal components, meaning you have to speak in a strong voice to fulfill the component. Grinning is not speaking, therefore it is not enough to provide the necessary component.
**EDIT** Engrish is hard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the nice things about naming the ability "cackle" is that this implies that the Witch in question is having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, if Cackle in PF2 still has a Verbal component, it would still require speaking in a strong voice. If you were gagged or deaf, for example, it would mean you have the potential to not succeed at the action.
To stay on target with PF2 Cackle, the presence of Verbal and absence of Auditory puts us in a situation where you have to actually laugh aloud but no one has to hear you. Almost makes sense, the Witch's Spell is the real target of Cackle, not whatever creature got targeted originally. The Witch being silenced is a hard no, as that directly interferes with Verbal. The afflicted creature being deafened makes no difference at all.
Not to suggest I think Cackle must be interpreted as that overly narrow Hocus Pocus styled Witch. Reflavor to your hearts content, just keep that Verbal tag in mind. Grin real loud or something. I really like the concept of ringing a bell but that might be my bias talking. Still good to see a fellow Bloodborne enjoyer out in the wild.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, if Cackle in PF2 still has a Verbal component, it would still require speaking in a strong voice. If you were gagged or deaf, for example, it would mean you have the potential to not succeed at the action.To stay on target with PF2 Cackle, the presence of Verbal and absence of Auditory puts us in a situation where you have to actually laugh aloud but no one has to hear you. Almost makes sense, the Witch's Spell is the real target of Cackle, not whatever creature got targeted originally. The Witch being silenced is a hard no, as that directly interferes with Verbal. The afflicted creature being deafened makes no difference at all.
Not to suggest I think Cackle must be interpreted as that overly narrow Hocus Pocus styled Witch. Reflavor to your hearts content, just keep that Verbal tag in mind. Grin real loud or something. I really like the concept of ringing a bell but that might be my bias talking. Still good to see a fellow Bloodborne enjoyer out in the wild.
I don't know how grinning produces sound or vocalization, so that option is debunked. Also, the bells probably wouldn't work either, since it's not speaking or a form of vocalization to invoke the power. But things like Chanting or Praying would work.
So it’s not even up to GM interpretation. You have to actually cackle
In PF1 [which is specifically what I was replying to in the quote], yes.
FAQs for PF1 from 10 years ago aren’t relevant to PF2, again, maybe check things before authoritatively stating them as facts, you’re not helping yourself.
It COULD be relevant when it comes to a DM interpreting the PF2 Cackle saying "You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter" and "With a quick burst of laughter, you prolong a magical effect you created." I mean, it seemed important enough that PF1 specifically clarified it HAD to be a cackle, so maybe when PF2 says cackle/laughter it actually means it isn't beyond imagination.
Interesting; I would have assumed that a Verbal component, which outright states you need to be able to speak clearly/strongly, would have the Auditory trait, since it's required for you to speak to cast the spell.
It doesn't make much sense then for an effect like Silence to outright deny it to work, if the ability for it to produce sound does not matter in terms of ensuring its effect takes place.
I get what you're saying, my assumption here is that auditory means the spell effect requires the enemy be able to hear it in order to work. I would say it is akin to dazzling someone with a bright light, they need eyes to see it. Where as verbal is you needing to speak the words clearly in order to produce said effect. When you cast a spell you speak words of power, these words really only need to be understood by the universe, God or gods, or whatever, to grant you the power. Not the target of the spell. Verbal components aren't blocked by a blaring siren for instance, but auditory effects would be. Only God needs to hear your prayer, not the person you're smiting with a giant pillar of sacred fire. I assume silence cuts your ability to invoke this power beyond merely being a physical effect
I really like the concept of ringing a bell but that might be my bias talking. Still good to see a fellow Bloodborne enjoyer out in the wild.
If I could post emojis I would be putting the flexing arm emoji as a response to this