|
So I'm looking into playing a runelord wizard soon and also curious to be ready as a regular GM for if/when others play them and I'm curious what others think about some of the vaguer sin anathema, Gluttony/Necromancy in particular:
Anathema: Use your magic to protect others or manipulate minds.
So "using magic to protect others" feels like the more straightforward of these to parse out mechanically, because this allows for Shield (a "selfish" spell) but not anything that would improve the AC, Saves, or Resistances of teammates. So far so good.
But not using magic to "manipulate minds" is a bit trickier. I think it's obvious the author didn't mean "manipulate + mental traits" per se because that's an entirely different definition of manipulate, but that leaves an interpretation issue for me. Here are the possibilities I can think of and I'd love feedback on this:
Option 1: Avoid the mental trait spells entirely. This is the simplest but also most restrictive interpretation.
Option 2: Avoid specifically spells that are both "mental" and manipulate behavior (command, suggestion, et c.) but not other mental spells (mindlink, infectious enthusiasm). But this begs the question of which side of the divide simpler debuffs that don't explicitly 'manipulate' enemy behavior in the vernacular sense go (daze, fear, befuddle), which leads potential division between 2a (daze is anathema) vs 2b (daze is fine)
Thoughts?
Option 1. The premaster ban was on all Enchantment spells, and this is closest. I might have thought to exempt Illusion/Mental trait spells, but to my surprise Vision of Death doesn't have Illusion anymore (Phantasmal Killer was in that school), and it's hard to argue that a fear component or something like Hallucinate isn't "manipulating" a mind. Get rid of them all, you still have access to other Fort targeting debuffs and stuff like Slow.
I'm thinking it means 'manipulate' in a psychology sense rather than a physical sense.
Physically manipulating their mind with a crit from a pickaxe wouldn't break anathema. Neither would dealing mental damage (you aren't trying to influence their perceptions of reality). So I would allow Daze for that reason. Damaging their mind isn't the same as manipulating it.
Command would be a problem as would other types of mental-emotional state controlling spells like Fear or Calm.
But as with all things Edicts/Anathema the primary purpose is for making interesting and fun characters, not as a way for everyone at the table to try and control what this character can and cannot do.
The guidance for running Runelords in PFS is to use the old schools as an example. That's not the same thing as official errata (although a decent percentage of PFS clarifications have gone on to become errata), but it's a good starting point. I agree that illusion spells should be fine, but most things have the Emotion and/or Mental trait would be part of your anathema. So Illusory Creature is fine, Daze, Fear, and vision of Death are not.
I feel for the Runelord anathema is to really stick to your gut reaction when you read it the first time.
When I read "manipulate minds" to me that means mental compulsions, like command, suggestion, dominate. Something that forces you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel for the Runelord anathema is to really stick to your gut reaction when you read it the first time.
When I read "manipulate minds" to me that means mental compulsions, like command, suggestion, dominate. Something that forces you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise.
That feels a bit too narrow- if somebody magically makes me feel unnatural fear, I'd definitely consider that "manipulating my mind" even if it's not a compulsion. The anathema isn't "controlling minds".
|
This is one of those places where I would again encourage communication with the GM and the player. because if a player can propose a way to reflavor a spell so that it does nothing except drop the mental trait, maybe give it the illusion trait, or something like that, I would let them do that.
but also a GM reminding a player of their anathema and giving them a chance to correct themselves would be something that has to happen too.
And I've said before that yes, tell them of clear violations to their anathema, but in edge cases say it "May violate their anathema". the GM still makes the call, and the individual can make the appropriate arcana check to figure out if it would, or gamble.
That feels a bit too narrow- if somebody magically makes me feel unnatural fear, I'd definitely consider that "manipulating my mind" even if it's not a compulsion. The anathema isn't "controlling minds".I feel for the Runelord anathema is to really stick to your gut reaction when you read it the first time.
When I read "manipulate minds" to me that means mental compulsions, like command, suggestion, dominate. Something that forces you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise.
Agree, and this is why I would add Hallucinate from the illusion with mental trait side of the house. Making my neighbor's wife think I'm her husband every time she looks at me (because of a change I made to her mind, not to my visual appearance) is definitely manipulating her mind!
That feels a bit too narrow- if somebody magically makes me feel unnatural fear, I'd definitely consider that "manipulating my mind" even if it's not a compulsion. The anathema isn't "controlling minds".I feel for the Runelord anathema is to really stick to your gut reaction when you read it the first time.
When I read "manipulate minds" to me that means mental compulsions, like command, suggestion, dominate. Something that forces you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise.
I can respect that.
I think of a Runelord's anathema differently than say a Cleric's or Champion's. A cleric that violates an anathema is violating their god's teachings, supposedly getting them upset.
For a Runelord I think of it more that the Runelord sees that type of magic as below them. They are too good to debase themselves to use low magic like manipulating minds.