| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mathfinder did an overview of Impossible Spells and showed off 3 of the 5. The short notes version:
1. Your soul can cast one Impossible Spell ever.
2. They require hard to get components for their rank, are unique, and effectively require GM permission to use at all.
3. They leave a long lasting negative effect on you an hour after casting that is permanent until removed (which itself is hard).
4. Their effects are very strong.
Aside from the spells themselves, which are super cool (that 10th rank one wiping memories are slowing/stopping everything in a 100 mile radius seems perfect for assaulting a royal capital to pull off an impossible heist), the framework here is great. It'd be straightforward for a GM or AP to make up new versions of these and give folks that like disproportional, reality warping spells a way to get that feeling back in PF2 at a pivotal moment.
This is an area where I think mythic spells missed the mark and magic in PF2 in general has backed away from. There's good reasons for that, but even Manifestation lost its "at GM discretion you may use this spell to produce greater effects" line that Wish/Miracle/etc used to have. The narrative power of spells in general has scaled WAY down (again, with good reasons), but Impossible spells are Paizo saying "here's a way to put that in without breaking the whole game permanently."
I don't have the book yet (my FLGS is having a hard time getting it), but from what I've seen this is a great mechanic that I hope folks are willing to use in their games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dang, one ever per caster is rough, I was wondering about that earlier. Even with the epic effects, feels like it would take some GMing work to make it feel like the epic centerpiece to a campaign that the mechanic deserves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I really like about these, particularly with the mark they leave on the caster, is that they do actually feel like an artifact like Paizo was teasing.
In particular, these are the sorts of spells that very much feel like they should be central to the plot and drive of the campaign, and trying to fix the fallout is its own added arc. Just like how a lot of AP's and campaigns have centered around a key artifact's retrieval (or destruction!) as the primary arc.
Having played a "chronomancer" in my group's last PF campaign, Veil of Broken Reality reads as so incredibly cool as not only a plot device but a tool to utilize. OR, even better, as something to avoid using unless literally all other options have been exhausted (especially as someone who was drifting through timelines and the multiverse before "evolving" into a Witchwarper, the idea of everyone he's ever known forgetting who he is would be quite terrifying).
Definitely a cool design space to really go ham with what magic can really mean in the setting, both mechanically and narratively!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Impossible spells ended up being what I expected them to be; a cool idea that in practice nobody is going to use. Just like rituals.
I agree they are cool thematically and, if the GM is willing to handweave things a bit, they can be great campaign seeds. For example, something happens and a beloved NPC casts an impossible spell that costs their life, which causes the PCs to go into an adventure to try to undo the effects of the impossible spells and bring back this NPC from death, searching for alternative ways to solve the problem that caused this NPC to cast that spell in the fist place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dang, one ever per caster is rough, I was wondering about that earlier. Even with the epic effects, feels like it would take some GMing work to make it feel like the epic centerpiece to a campaign that the mechanic deserves.
Yeah these are not things you casually throw around. These are either a core part of the plot itself because the PCs are trying to do something that can't be done without it (and is suitably world altering), or the last resort you use because you're backed into a corner with no other option.
We didn't really have something in that space before and it's nice to have spells in PF2 that come with major narrative heft.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found them underwhelming honestly. Grandiose flavor text backed by largely boring mechanics that boil down to "thing you could already do but we increased the AoE."
At least the time one has an interesting narrative effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Watching the video now, the fact that even the "Lethologic mark" aftereffects persist in your soul, not even just your body, immediately puts me in the mind of a whole campaign of the reincarnations of an epic band of Impossible Spell using heroes. Still struggling with the crippling aftereffects of their past lives, they're now faced with coming together, going on the quests needed to cure their maladies, and living up to a legacy that has irrevocably shaped the modern day.
Even in a campaign that doesn't, and in fact can't use these, they have the potential to completely shape the narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is pretty awesome design space and it really does show us, from an adventure writer/GM perspective how bonkers can a spell really get in this world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
require many materials, big effect on a large area, (arbritrary) additional limitations
honestly, I do wonder why they are not just another type of ritual
heck, since they are a once per caster thing, a sidebar would have been enough
While I dont dislike the idea (and havent seen the actual spells yet) it feels like the page space could have been better invested in...lets say additional archetypes or regular spells, that characters can just use and are relevant as more then a campaign mcguffing
you dont exactly need rules for those anyway, they are just outlined by the campaign they come from / are made for
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm under the impression Paizo is introducing this mechanics in the book because they are planning to use it somewhere else. Likely an AP.
I say this because this book includes exactly 5 impossible spells, which is...not a lot.
require many materials, big effect on a large area, (arbritrary) additional limitations
honestly, I do wonder why they are not just another type of ritual
heck, since they are a once per caster thing, a sidebar would have been enough
Probably because rituals kind of don't work at the purpose of being useful or even interesting in a climactic moment:
1. They take way too long to cast.2. The DCs are far too high and the secondary caster requirements are too punishing for them to work reliably.
3. They require such specific skills in a lot of cases that a given party might have almost chance of actually doing them.
4. You don't actually need to be able to use magic to do them.
A ritual is a thing you do that takes hours/days and then something happens afterward, which might even be what you want if the dice cooperate. An Impossible spell is something you bust out in combat.
While I'd love a revamp of the ritual system to be more usable, it's just not well suited to what this is trying to do.
[quoteWhile I dont dislike the idea (and havent seen the actual spells yet) it feels like the page space could have been better invested in...lets say additional archetypes or regular spells, that characters can just use and are relevant as more then a campaign mcguffing
you dont exactly need rules for those anyway, they are just outlined by the campaign they come from / are made for
The book has 50 pages of spells and a bunch of archetypes already. This is a pretty small number of pages.
I mean, PF2 has tons of spells already. It far fewer spells that actually matter, and even fewer spells that have real narrative heft.
|
I'm concerned about the metaphysical implications. Do you know if your soul has used an impossible spell?
A Samsaran might have thousands of past lives with the same soul, but limited memories. The same aplies in a planar afterlife. After being judged by Phrasma, the soul loses its memories, but would it know learning an impossible spell is fruitless?
If the information is not transferred, it would be hilarious to play a Samsaran Wizard up to high-level, get to the plot-necessary impossible spell, and then discover you can't do it.
On the other hand, we've been lead to believe Phrasma has good reason for wiping memories. (see the NecroEthics thread) If binary information can be transferred, is that a risk to the universe?
I assume that in universe, people have no idea. The few people who even know about impossible spells probably just know "you only ever get one shot at this" and the people who thought they figured the system out and how to exploit it have not come back around to convince anyone that they were right.
|
|
I assume that in universe, people have no idea. The few people who even know about impossible spells probably just know "you only ever get one shot at this" and the people who thought they figured the system out and how to exploit it have not come back around to convince anyone that they were right.
Well, I'd hate to dedicate my life to learning an impossible spell only to discover I already did one a dozen reincarnations ago.
I was not sure what I was expecting from this system. Once ever seems fine narratively but outside of that they seem like a system where you will hand-wave a lot of stuff for. Once ever seems kinda lackluster and you will never cast an Impossible Spell outside of narrative reasons. They don't feel like artifacts they feel less like those and more like weird McGuffins or whatever...Can a Wish Ritual reset your Impossible Spell limit?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm happy with what impossible spells do for the narrative, so I'll repeat what I said elsewhere.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.
Baba Yaga is the most powerful known witch, only not a goddess because it would be too restrictive, and conquered a nation in twenty-three days. It sounds pretty reasonable that casting an impossible spell is what her actually trying looks like. It would do a better job of conveying her narrative level of magical strength than "full mythic" does in PF2.
They're the kind of magic that we've heard about, but that doesn't mesh with PF2's more balanced casting. I don't really need to ever cast it in a game, I'm just happy that there's now some mechanical support to justify the narrative.
I'm also very happy that we only got five of them- while I'm glad they exist, I don't want a bunch of space being spent on them.
And finally...
I'm happy with what impossible spells do for the narrative, so I'll repeat what I said elsewhere.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.
Baba Yaga is the most powerful known witch, only not a goddess because it would be too restrictive, and conquered a nation in twenty-three days. It sounds pretty reasonable that casting an impossible spell is what her actually trying looks like. It would do a better job of conveying her narrative level of magical strength than "full mythic" does in PF2.
They're the kind of magic that we've heard about, but that doesn't mesh with PF2's more balanced casting. I don't really need to ever cast it in a game, I'm just happy that there's now some mechanical support to justify the narrative.
That's a great point. It's not a fit for every NPC situation, like Old Mage Jatembe can clearly wield magic beyond player characters without it needing to be an Impossible spell. But there's lots of cases where this can fit, and it also provides a framework for if a GM does want a player to be able to do these kind of feats.
And finally...
** spoiler omitted **
pfft, our magic is so good baseline that we don't need Impossible spells to be awesome. ;)
I was not sure what I was expecting from this system. Once ever seems fine narratively but outside of that they seem like a system where you will hand-wave a lot of stuff for. Once ever seems kinda lackluster and you will never cast an Impossible Spell outside of narrative reasons. They don't feel like artifacts they feel less like those and more like weird McGuffins or whatever...Can a Wish Ritual reset your Impossible Spell limit?
Wish is pretty much entirely "it does whatever the GM allows it to do", so... maybe? It's kind of like asking if the Gods can do it, where that's outside the scope of the rules.
require many materials, big effect on a large area, (arbritrary) additional limitations
honestly, I do wonder why they are not just another type of ritual
heck, since they are a once per caster thing, a sidebar would have been enough
TBF, rituals in PF2e were specifically designed as "(pseudo)spells to be 'cast' outside of combat, have effects that last longer than a single day, etc."
Impossible spells are a different design space.
I mean, rituals take longer to cast because that's how most rituals were made. It isn't like its something instrinsic about them, even if coincidentally they all share that trait. If we have gotten rituals which had normal casting times but consequences attached to them I feel it would effectively be the same.
It could also have been more fun, since everyone can use rituals, and I personally find the "cast a spell, but with a consequence" more in the realm of pseudo-magical classes like the thaumaturge and now runemisth than something a spellcaster would do, which are the ones that have similar risk-free options available.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bit off-topic, but I'll take this chance to push my "please Paizo, make spells not related to combat rituals in PF3e" agenda.
A bit off-topic, but I'll take this chance to push my "please Paizo, make spells not related to combat rituals in PF3e" agenda.
I started the thread and I'm totally fine with the deviation. Different design spaces for spells is on topic. :)
How would that work?
A bit off-topic, but I'll take this chance to push my "please Paizo, make spells not related to combat rituals in PF3e" agenda.I started the thread and I'm totally fine with the deviation. Different design spaces for spells is on topic. :)
How would that work?
For non-casters, you'll be able to cast a ritual by making an appropiate skill check based on the ritual's prerequisites (likely an Arcana, Religion, Nature, or Occultism check) which would take a certain amount of time (I'm thinking 10 minutes for most rituals, but since there's spells like teleport that already have a casting time of 10 minutes, its likely some would probably go up to 1 hour or even 1 day). Like PF2e rituals, these would also have a material cost in the form of gp and the like.
For casters, it kinda depends how its implemented. If rituals replicate the effects of already existing spells, then casters would have the option to cast them normally through their spell slots or cast them as rituals like non-casters to not expend their spell slots. Since I personally would prefer for vancian casting to be removed in PF3e as well, I think that the spells directly tied to combat (so buffs, debuffs, heals, and damage spells) would receive the same treatment that wish got in the remaster and become rituals. Unlike non-casters, a caster wouldn't need to pay the material cost of rituals and wouldn't require to make the check to cast the ritual either.
Think like how non-casters require Trick Magic Item to cast a spell from a wand or scroll, but casters don't as long as those spells belong to their spell tradition. They'll likely be able to cast the rituals faster as well, but it would probably be a bit too cumbersome to list two different casting times for rituals based on if you are a caster or not, so the casting time will likely be the same for both casters and non-casters for simplicity. Probably non-casters would need another restriction?
Dang, one ever per caster is rough, I was wondering about that earlier. Even with the epic effects, feels like it would take some GMing work to make it feel like the epic centerpiece to a campaign that the mechanic deserves.I was a bit surprised at the single impossible spell ever rule, myself. Then again, of all the restrictions on impossible spells it also seems the easiest to soften, which you may need to do depending on how many casters/characters you have.
It calls to mind the Imperial Practices in Mage: the Awakening and archmasters needing to go through long elaborate schemes in order to gather the quiescence that allows them to cast Imperial spells (Mage’s own version of Impossible Magic). Even just gathering the stuff is a walking plot hook since it takes a while and drives the character’s decisions. Using something like that to fuel your next impossible spell would make sense as a direction to go.
|
I'm under the impression Paizo is introducing this mechanics in the book because they are planning to use it somewhere else. Likely an AP.
I say this because this book includes exactly 5 impossible spells, which is...not a lot.
From what I read here, Impossible Spells do feel like the kind of subsystems that are used in a specific AP, described in a rulebook so that GMs can poach the concept and mechanics, and then left unused.
That seems a trend in recent years IMO.
Is there a reason why a table would use these mechanics for handling it's fiat-plot-magic over doing conventional fiat?
Seems like it'd still need to involve all of the work and fiat decisions that not using the system would involve.
|
I'm under the impression Paizo is introducing this mechanics in the book because they are planning to use it somewhere else. Likely an AP.
I say this because this book includes exactly 5 impossible spells, which is...not a lot.
From what I read here, Impossible Spells do feel like the kind of subsystems that are used in a specific AP, described in a rulebook so that GMs can poach the concept and mechanics, and then left unused.
That seems a trend in recent years IMO.
Its been a trend since Ultimate Magic, really ..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.
... While it's impressive, leveling a single city is kind of... weirdly underwhelming for a spell that leaves your soul permanently marked.
Which is sort of my impression of the system in general. The spells are genuinely neat but some of them seem weirdly tame considering the metaphysical implications.
It sort of feels like the "once only" restriction is to just keep them from being abused but in a really over dramatic way that kind of overshoots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sort of feels like the "once only" restriction is to just keep them from being abused but in a really over dramatic way that kind of overshoots.
That's why you'd use Dominate on other casters to have them cast impossible spells for you. >:-D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I'm happy to have an interesting resource to pepper in games. As a player, I heard "once per character, ever" and promptly stopped thinking about impossible spells
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... While it's impressive, leveling a single city is kind of... weirdly underwhelming for a spell that leaves your soul permanently marked.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.
Hard disagree on that for me- it's a whole city and just one person doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree on that for me- it's a whole city and just one person doing it.... While it's impressive, leveling a single city is kind of... weirdly underwhelming for a spell that leaves your soul permanently marked.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.
It might be impressive by 2e standards, but burning down an entire city as a 19th level wizard in 1e with any sort of prep time is more than doable.
I guess that's an easy enough source for homebrew impossible spells. Just give a player some 1e magic.
As a GM I'm happy to have an interesting resource to pepper in games. As a player, I heard "once per character, ever" and promptly stopped thinking about impossible spells
Yeah, from a practical standpoint it means "might as well not exist".
That said, I can imagine using it as a very specific plot point in a campaign to solve a problem (a problem that was likely dreamt up to justify the usage of such a spell).
But it's basically the kind of thing that you do at the culmination of a campaign shortly before retiring the character and that's it. It's basically giving the GM a way of saying "I'm going to have you interact with the plot with these narrative consequences and now I have a rules basis for what to make that look like".
First of all, bringing an entire city down with just one spell was pretty difficult in PF1, just from an area of effect perspective. It feels like Area of Effect is one thing the Impossible Spells are willing to throw out the basic spell guidelines on.
One of the things gs I like about the sound of the impossible spell framework is that it kind of works like a wish, but can be broken up into much lower level situations and it becomes a way to help players get an opportunity to do some thing they really want to make a major goal of their character without becoming something they can just do every day on a whim.
I think it also makes some interesting character back story ideas.
I get that some “player options” layers are not going to be thrilled with anything in a rule book that isn’t going to be a reliable player option for building a character around, but hopefully folks see how this is a pretty powerful option for GMs to build an adventure or even a campaign around, either as a thing to unleash early on to show an NPCs dedication to accomplishing some task, or as a developer mg plot goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be impressive by 2e standards, but burning down an entire city as a 19th level wizard in 1e with any sort of prep time is more than doable.
I guess that's an easy enough source for homebrew impossible spells. Just give a player some 1e magic.
Demolishing a city is impressive at all, never mind with one spell slot and in combat time, even by 1e magic standards. Conveniently someone's already researched about how big in terms of space medieval cities were (about 165 acres per 10000 people, and each acre is 100x207.8 feet). Even with Golarion's unrealistically small canonical populations, anything shy of, like, Mythic Tsunami is going to struggle to cover enough area to actually qualify as destroying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree on that for me- it's a whole city and just one person doing it.... While it's impressive, leveling a single city is kind of... weirdly underwhelming for a spell that leaves your soul permanently marked.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.It might be impressive by 2e standards, but burning down an entire city as a 19th level wizard in 1e with any sort of prep time is more than doable.
I guess that's an easy enough source for homebrew impossible spells. Just give a player some 1e magic.
Exactly. In 1e, Razmir destroying a city overnight as a high level Wizard was something feasible. Maybe there was a little fudging, but it fit. Moving to 2e, that felt like a more serious lore and mechanics disconnect. To me, this helps resolve that disconnect. As an added bonus, it also makes it easier to buy some people believing he's a god if he did actually something beyond what another high-level Wizard could normally do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People who live in a world where according to folklore a cow destroyed the city of Chicago with a population of 300,000: "wow, I can't imagine how a powerful wizard could accomplish such a thing."
People who live in a world where according to folklore a cow destroyed the city of Chicago with a population of 300,000: "wow, I can't imagine how a powerful wizard could accomplish such a thing."
Here's the thing, though: I think it is generally understood that the spells need to be doing the bulk of the work for it to be impressive enough. Nobody is impressed with the cow, or afraid of it, or making it the head of government. Sure, it's possible that the explanation is just the fire hazard rules did most of the work and Razmir killed anyone who said it was mundane fire, but it's too unsatisfying for most people.
I think a 10th-rank Earthquake or Wrathful Storm, especially with Shift Spell could do the trick. A scroll of the same spell (and Effortless Concentration) would allow 2 of those spells, even as a 19th-rank (Elementalist) Wizard.
People who live in a world where according to folklore a cow destroyed the city of Chicago with a population of 300,000: "wow, I can't imagine how a powerful wizard could accomplish such a thing."
But the reality is (regardless of if the cow initially caused it or not) that the city was in the middle of a drought with primarily wooden construction that allowed a presumably small starting fire to turn into a blaze that would engulf a large portion of the city.
It's not "cow destroys city" it's "uncontrolled fire due to poor building practices and lots of flammable things destroyed the city".
It'd be like saying "Well, Razmir technically destroyed the city, because he shot one fireball at the firework and coal factory which caused a huge fire".
But I guess your point is more how from a lore perspective people might believe something that isn't really true. And if that is your point, then...yeah.
|
|
Hard disagree on that for me- it's a whole city and just one person doing it.... While it's impressive, leveling a single city is kind of... weirdly underwhelming for a spell that leaves your soul permanently marked.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.It might be impressive by 2e standards, but burning down an entire city as a 19th level wizard in 1e with any sort of prep time is more than doable.
I guess that's an easy enough source for homebrew impossible spells. Just give a player some 1e magic.
And it does leave its brand on your soul too.
Burning Blossoms is an existing (and here reprinted) mass casualty spell if you cast it near or in some huge crowd or gathering.
Burning Blossoms is an existing (and here reprinted) mass casualty spell if you cast it near or in some huge crowd or gathering.
Kind of. It could be dangerous to a group of low level characters that are within 1 minute walking distance. Technically it's wonky since you only need to spend 1 action walking towards it...but you can spend your others walking away from it, I can't see anything that prevents it outright (could and probably should argue that fascinated conditions should prevent you from doing that but nothing explicitly does as far as I can tell).
In any event, you're going to maybe get people within 1 minute walking distance of the tree. That could be hundreds of people.
But relative to a city, it's likely to be nothing compared to their population.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo, where is our “One Cow of Unholy Devastation” impossible spell that was cast once in Chicago?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Impossible Spells, though I think they should be *slightly* less restricted, like maybe you can't cast that impossible spell ever again, but you can cast others, or you'd have to relearn it (which the GM would have to facilitate anyway) to ever cast it again.
I think the mention of gods being able to cast them more than once is kind of tantalizing, and based off the description, it sure sounds like there would be A WAY to do it, something like rebirthing the soul.
Actually, there is one quirky way-- some of the war of immortals level 20 immortality type stuff in the mythic destinies and classes, have a variant where someone takes up your mantle.
Does your soul scar transfer to your chosen knight when the Legacy on Monarchs feat is invoked since it says "For all intents and purposes" or if you just train a successor for the Animist Eternal Guide feat.
|
|
And it does leave its brand on your soul too.Hard disagree on that for me- it's a whole city and just one person doing it.... While it's impressive, leveling a single city is kind of... weirdly underwhelming for a spell that leaves your soul permanently marked.
We hear about Razmir using a spell to destroy an entire city and everyone in it. These are that sort of spell, and it adds another layer of scam to what he's doing if his biggest feat of magic was a one-time-only trick.It might be impressive by 2e standards, but burning down an entire city as a 19th level wizard in 1e with any sort of prep time is more than doable.
I guess that's an easy enough source for homebrew impossible spells. Just give a player some 1e magic.
Who can see the brand? If you follow an afterlife of reincarnation, do you know your previous life cast an impossible spell?