One thing I would say is that you should not need to look at premaster rules books to adjudicate the remaster rules.
But this really is something that they must have expected table variance to form around.
Create by the google definition is "bring (something) into existence."
Which would fit spells that create summon or conjure.
For me I am looking at the spell description like this.
Many spell descriptions say you create x (low hanging fruit). Fire shield for example.
"You create a hovering shield made of fire."
but not Fireball
"A roaring blast of fire detonates at a spot you designate,
dealing 6d6 fire damage."
This should probably be extended to spells that say you conjure or summon x like grease or summon construct.
I would probably not say Wrath's anathema applies to generating a momentary effect unless its protecting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Create by the google definition is "bring (something) into existence."
Which would fit spells that create summon or conjure.For me I am looking at the spell description like this.
Many spell descriptions say you create x (low hanging fruit). Fire shield for example.
"You create a hovering shield made of fire."
but not Fireball
"A roaring blast of fire detonates at a spot you designate,
dealing 6d6 fire damage."
By definition, everything you do in the game creates an effect. So it really doesn't matter of it's explicitly or implicitly mentions create in a spell description.
For instance, under Effect [Player Core pg. 426] it explains "Casting a fly spell on yourself creates an effect that allows you to soar through the air, but casting the spell does not require a check."
For an effect duration is states "For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect" and "Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use." The second quote shows that an instantaneous spell, like fireball, is created as much as one with an ongoing duration.
Range and Reach and Line of Effect have similar uses of create. IMO, it'd be better to go with 'creates a tangible physical effect'.
Hey all,
I wanted to get some ideas on how best to adjudicate what a runelord of a certain sin can and cannot cast. Take for example “Wrath” Anathema- cannot use your magic to protect or create
Protection is pretty straight forward, but create is very nebulous. That leaves a lot of interpretation, so I was wondering how others were tackling this. Are you putting caveats for the anathema? Such as, it causes damage so it isn’t creating, or are you using duration of the spell as truly creating (instantaneous vs a duration), or are you looking to see what school the spell used to belong to pre remaster to inform your decisions? How are you all (or how would you suggest) a fair way to handle this would be? Our group enjoys Pathfinder 2E because it generally defines these things in detail and doesn’t cause a lot of friction from interpretation. This is a bit of a departure from that.
Most of my group played PF1 before PF2 and so some of these have easier answers there.
"Cannot use your magic to create" for example is actually easier in PF1 terminology because creation magic was classified. Most of it was Conjuration (Creation), and those typically created something that was either permanent or very long lasting. So although we don't have the category anymore, we know what a "creation" spell looks like and that's our guidance.
Effectively we would use that to block something that creates something permanent. So create food/water are out. Wall of Stone is out (but Wall of Force is fine). Anything that causes something new to exist for an extended period of time is out. There's still some grey areas, like Cozy Cabin isn't permanent but it is pretty long lasting so I wouldn't allow that one.
Summoning would be fine, however, as that doesn't create: it calls a creature to fight for you and then sends it back. (This has some interesting implications of its own.)
The lack of spell schools in PF2 creates more table variation on this, but looking back to PF1 gives my table a common base to work from in terms of being on the same page about what a creation spell looks like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would apply it to any spell that creates something with permanence, such as everlight or protector tree.
Note that most summoning spells no longer bring a real creature from elsewhere to fight for you; they do create one, albeit briefly. This was to avoid moral/ethical issues. The meta behind such spells remains vague, suggesting a sort of platonic ideal your spell taps into and replicates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would apply it to any spell that creates something with permanence, such as everlight or protector tree.
On the everlight spell it takes a gem to start. I would allow this one for Wrath. For me its imbuing magic in a gemstone rather than creating something.
Something I can suggest looking at are the "Sin Counterspell" entries found in the Revenge of the Runelords adventure path.
[MINOR SPOILERS, I guess:]
Pride
Trigger A creature within 30 feet casts a spell that creates or changes physical things
Envy
Trigger A creature within 30 feet casts a spell with the air, earth, fire, metal, water, wood, or void trait that deals damage
Since Pride (Illusion) and Wrath (Evocation) share an opposite school with one another, Sloth (Conjuration), you can take the "creates physical things" right there – the "changes" part refers to the Transmutation (Greed) school.
It looks to be pretty consistent for all non legacy spell descriptions.
Legacy spells would have the old school tags to go by.
But for remaster I think they paid attention to the language they used in spell descriptions for remastered content and used it to write the runemaster anathema.
Anyone see any remaster spells that looks like an exception?