Board index » SDC Worlds » Palladium Fantasy RPG®

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:59 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
when a god rolls to resist Banish

when a living being rolls to resist Transmutation

1) do they get bonuses vs magic? Greater Metamorphosis mentions a magic save and Banish mentions it is magical, seem inclined to assume all deific powers are a kind of magic (just not spell magic)

2) what is the target number? Greater Morph Demon is 16+ but these two don't list. If not 16 then perhaps 20 like the curses, or 1d20 like any power would roll vs Dispel Deific Power?

3) how long do you figure it takes to use? 3 attacks like a spell of legend as of Heart of Magic? Or maybe 1d6x10+30 given that GMD implies ritualness via strength 16?

4) if it was merely 3 attacks and a god needed to channel more than levelx600 PPE (HOM limit for solo casting overflow) then would you allow them to do unlimited amounts if they took the longer ritual time?

5) if a secondary manifestation is created in a dimension a god is banned from, does that count as their home dimension to prevent a banish?

6) if the secondary manifestation creates minions there (it requires touch of user, can't go through priests like Bio-Regen) would the minions only get half the extra abilities, or would you also halve the attributes of the base race used to make them?

7) if a minion can't be banished from wherever it's created, and banishing sends it back to where it came from, does that mean an easy way to rescue minions in danger of being killed is to send them to foreign dimensions and hit them with a banish a moment before the death blow is struck? It's a heck of a lot cheaper than dimensional teleport, and you can always cancel it once they're safe and send them out again once they're healed.

8) should secondary manifestations pay double PPE and bump their body investment up when using deific abilities, compared to the costs the primary pays (ie operate like the majority of Demon Lords excepting leaders Modeus+Andras+another) ?

9) would that mean secondary manifestations of lesser demon lords should pay QUADRUPLE the PPE and bump up body investment TWO degrees?

10) should Secondary Manifestations be created with a distinct True Name from the Primary, or be forced to inherit the True Name the god was using when they were made?

11) if the Primary Manifestation changes their True Name (say via Alter Primal Manifestation, well in the spirit of 'ritual rebirth' necessary) does that change the names of Secondary Manifestations too, or do they keep whatever they had?

12) should Secondary Manifestations be able to undergo processes like APM to adopt new true names, assuming they got the default same true name?

13) what's even the effect if multiple beings have the same True Name? Like for example if the Locate spell is used or a Crystal Ball is used? Do mages get "split screen" feedback? Does a Summoning Circle summon BOTH of them? If it's just one, how do you choose? Whoever got the name first? Whoever is closest?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:19 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
1-2.It does say Banish is a standard saving throw, so i guess that would be 12 (Which does tend to be the standard save), and saves vs magic would apply because its magic, not that it really matters as only gods get the save, and in annihilation costs the power is called an invocation, so its pretty confusing.
3. I think they take 1 action to do.
4. Nope, they just will it to happen and pay the cost as it's not casting, so no ritualising either (unless maybe to make it look cool for a mortal, still wouldn't do anything extra though.
5. The secondary manifestation is that god, so its home is where the gods home is. (one god in 2 bodies)
6. Nope, would be just as tough if the primal had done it, the secondary manifestation is the god, but working through a weaker body.
7. I'd allow that to work, but remember but it can't go back there for awhile.
8. Nope, still one god 2 bodies
9. nope, as it one god with 2 bodies i think the body investment would come from both bodies too, otherwise the god would alwys have to lessers for godblazes.
10. as its one god 2 bodies same name.
11. changes the secondary
12. its one being so it could be done by the secondary and would affect the primary
13. I think even if they have the same spelling, people would say their name slightly differently with different emphasis on different letters, and of course who you are imagining the power to effect would also make a difference.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:25 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
To the OP, It is standard to start you thoughts FROM THE BEGING of the idea IN THE POST even if you stated them in the title. This is so when people read the post like normal people, you give the ENTIRE idea you are asking about..... IN THE POST.. And doing it like this make it look like you were awake and sober when you wrote the post.

The OP declined to read the power for the clearly stated saving throws for the Banisment Deific power. Any egg on your face you put it there yourself.

@ both the OP and kiralon
Standard saving throws are based off the spell strength of the caster. For mortal mages the target number is typiclly between 12 and 16. Deific curses are +3 spell str over what mortals can muster (mortal limit for curses is a spell str of 15.) So I would expect that the standard saving throw target numbers would be from 15 to 19. Depending on the deity.

3 it would depend on the deity, but I would just go with 0.00018 seconds.

4 moot doesn't take more then one APM to use deific powers.

5 Moot, if a denied has been blocked from being in a plane of reality then a 2nd manifestation can not be created there.

6 moot due to it can't happen, see answer for part 5.

7 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

8 (and no you are not 8) ) again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

9 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

10 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

11 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

12 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

13 part one: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 2: Crystal ball: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 3: sum. o : it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 4: which one: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster intends to get.

Opinion: the OP for this topic was meant to start an argument, or use whoever's opinion was the same as the OP's own as a basis for those opinions so they can ignore canon. Both of which are a crazy way to run a railroad.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:05 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
@ both the OP and kiralon
Standard saving throws are based off the spell strength of the caster. For mortal mages the target number is typiclly between 12 and 16. Deific curses are +3 spell str over what mortals can muster (mortal limit for curses is a spell str of 15.) So I would expect that the standard saving throw target numbers would be from 15 to 19. Depending on the deity.

I'm curious about the limit of 15 for curses for mortals, does it say that somewhere or is that just the caster level spell strength.
Same with deific curses being +3 strength, I think they should be stronger, the deific power of curse is a nat 20 save, and isn't a spell, but does it say that somewhere as well, i have an ok knowledge of curses but still use the rules out of first ed high seas, maybe mom has an update?

For number 5, a god creates a secondary manifestation in devil, and the primal manifestation gets banished what happens to the secondary manifestation was the way i was thinking he was talking about, my opinion is the manifestations home is where the gods home is, and it would likely drag the second manifestation along with it, but i probably wouldn't decide that until it happened.
I think you are thinking all the abilities he was asking about was if the secondary manifestation was doing it from a banished realm, i think question 1-4 are linked and 5+ are mostly separate from main unnumbered questions,

but i am very curious about the curse spell strength limit (I have given the pc's more negatives than they should have gotten for example)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 8:21 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
kiralon wrote:
1-2.It does say Banish is a standard saving throw, so i guess that would be 12 (Which does tend to be the standard save), and saves vs magic would apply because its magic, not that it really matters as only gods get the save, and in annihilation costs the power is called an invocation, so its pretty confusing.

It is standard to add "spell strength" to magic saves, do you think it would be a higher save against deities with spell strength bonuses?

kiralon wrote:
3. I think they take 1 action to do.

Just sort of a "default when nothing else is specified" like with psi?

Do you figure "Dispel Deific Power" simply is not a countermeasure one can "during casting" to interrupt it before it takes effect, like a dodge/parry/entangle?

kiralon wrote:
5. The secondary manifestation is that god, so its home is where the gods home is. (one god in 2 bodies)

Or three (you can make two secondary manifestations)

But you can create them on other worlds via sight: so why wouldn't they be considered "born" on those worlds?

kiralon wrote:
6. Nope, would be just as tough if the primal had done it, the secondary manifestation is the god, but working through a weaker body.

So which aspects of a Secondary Manifestation would you halve vs keep intact?

kiralon wrote:
7. I'd allow that to work, but remember but it can't go back there for awhile.

Unless the banisher opts to lift it, which is presumably ALSO instantaneous. You'd have to find another way to return, of course.

kiralon wrote:
8. Nope, still one god 2 bodies

So 'bodies' are you maybe thinking just point pools (HP/SDC/chi/ISP/PPE) and nothing else? What about attributes, experience level, damage from energy blasts?

kiralon wrote:
9. nope, as it one god with 2 bodies i think the body investment would come from both bodies too, otherwise the god would alwys have to lessers for godblazes.

There doesn't seem to be any indication that injury to one affects the other though.

kiralon wrote:
10. as its one god 2 bodies same name.

I think it's more than 2 bodies though, there's also a "2 minds" effect.

After all, it specifies a Secondary Manifestation can only see through the eyes of worshippers on an assigned world.

If the Primary Manifestation simply auto-shared all his thoughts to the SM then this wouldn't be a logical thing to list.

kiralon wrote:
11. changes the secondary

Why do you think mental changes to primary go to second even though visions of other realms' worshippers do not?

kiralon wrote:
12. its one being so it could be done by the secondary and would affect the primary

I don't really think it IS one being though:

"it can only look through the eyes of the followers on its appointed world or realm"

That's a limit for a completely separate mind IMO.

However a feed is basically sent from the Secondary to the Primary, so the Primary is aware of all the Secondary sees, but not vice versa.

kiralon wrote:
13. I think even if they have the same spelling, people would say their name slightly differently with different emphasis on different letters, and of course who you are imagining the power to effect would also make a difference.

You might not imagine them at all though, or know some special pronunciation, just as a Create Scroll which uses a True Name.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 8:38 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
To the OP, It is standard to start you thoughts FROM THE BEGING of the idea IN THE POST even if you stated them in the title. This is so when people read the post like normal people, you give the ENTIRE idea you are asking about..... IN THE POST..

Normal people do not read titles?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
And doing it like this make it look like you were awake and sober when you wrote the post.

Sobriety and alertness helps me avoid unnecessary duplication.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
The OP declined to read the power for the clearly stated saving throws for the Banisment Deific power. Any egg on your face you put it there yourself.

I did read it, but there are many "standard" savings throws. It doesn't for example give a context of "standard spell magic" or "standard ritual magic" or "standard psionics".

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
@ both the OP and kiralon
Standard saving throws are based off the spell strength of the caster.

Not if it's a standard savings throw vs poison.

Basically I was looking for concurrence that it was magic and if so, what strength to go with.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Deific curses are +3 spell str over what mortals can muster (mortal limit for curses is a spell str of 15.)

Ley Line Walkers manage a +4 by level 13 in RUE. Suppose I'll need to recheck the Wizard OCC.

So I would expect that the standard saving throw target numbers would be from 15 to 19. Depending on the deity.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
3 it would depend on the deity, but I would just go with 0.00018 seconds.

=/

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
4 moot doesn't take more then one APM to use deific powers.

How can we be sure of this?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
5 Moot, if a denied has been blocked from being in a plane of reality then a 2nd manifestation can not be created there.

Being banished stops you from physically traveling there, but not using deific powers.

I'm positing that since I think a Secondary Manifestation is a distinct thing suffering distinct effects that it should be made fresh without baggage like that.

Like for example: if a Primary Manifestation had Impervious to Energy cast on it, I don't think that spell would also appear on the Secondary Manifestation.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
6 moot due to it can't happen, see answer for part 5.

Drew, part of this question is if a SM can create minions, which is not related to the question of whether or not they inherit a Banish.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
7 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

Drew I'm getting the impression you chose not to read a lot of these points, because this is about Minions being banished not manifestation

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
8 (and no you are not 8) ) again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

This is also unrelated to five (I'm thinking you're phoning it in and not reading at all here) the question is about interpreting 'half power' for manifestations. "Double cost" is one approach I'm asking thoughts on.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
9 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

100% confident you're trolling or not reading at all, at this point, you just spammed the same sentence over and over, because this was a followup to 8 about Deific Power costs, and has nothing to do with Banishment inheritance.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
10 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

The "something that cant't happen" you keep referring to from 5 is "create Manifestation in dimension I'm Banished from", which has nothing at all to do with my question about True Names.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
11 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

12 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

Further inappropriate replies to discussion of True Names. Actually report-worthy TBH

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
13 part one: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 2: Crystal ball: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 3: sum. o : it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 4: which one: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster intends to get.

Thank you for at least paying attention to this one.

Do you know of any spells that can operate on a name alone though, with no other detail?

If that is the case then how would the caster mean to get a particular one of the name-sharers?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Opinion: the OP for this topic was meant to start an argument,
or use whoever's opinion was the same as the OP's own as a basis for those opinions so they can ignore canon.
Both of which are a crazy way to run a railroad.

So you are saying that the intent of this thread is either:
    1) to seek disagreement
    2) to seek agreement

One can seek opinions knowing that opinions may be either of these two things.

I can tell you I wasn't looking for spammy replies like you gave for 6-12, and even 5 doesn't really elaborate on why you think Banishment blocks using this particular Deific Power via sight.

kiralon wrote:
I'm curious about the limit of 15 for curses for mortals, does it say that somewhere or is that just the caster level spell strength.

I think he's just going by a lot of magic OCCs only having three level-up bonuses, but there are some (least in Rifts) with 4.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 9:14 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
1-2
It is standard but it very specifically states + to spell strength and the prototypical powers are stated to be definitely not spells. Would a multiclas wizard/diabolist add his spell strength from being a wizard to wards?
However the fact that a standard save is mentioned it makes you think its spell magic, so still confusing.


3. I play negate magic as having a duration of 1 round per level, if if someone casts a spell at you during the duration you can "parry" it.
I'd allow dispel deific power to be precast too.

5. Because they are still the same god. The description literally says 1 god 2 bodies, so i think of it like a finger puppet the god has pushed into another world. The God in the original world is still creating it there and making it appear somewhere else.

6. I'd do it the same way as doppleganger, in the gods list everything that comes under natural abilities would be at half %, and the powers would go off like a half leveled god, but the powers themselves are the powers and would stay the same, like the flight spell wouldn't half speed, but would half anything effected by level like the damage from fireball, but also in saying that the body investments would come off the primary, not the secondary (I would say both but the primary can see where the secondary can so will still be the originator

8. Attributes would be the same, xp levels would be halved so ppe, sdc hp isp and anything level dependant would halve

9. No it doesn't, but id allow things that drain isp and ppe and chi hit both simultaneously as they are the spiritual aspect.

10. Nope, in the description it says 2 bodies 1 mind, thats pretty direct, Say if you were the god, think of 2 gloves, one in your primary hand is perfect fitting and perfectly armoured and moves perfectly with your thought, the one on your off hand only has 2 finger holes and only a bit of your thumb can get through the thumb hole and is made out of some rigid stuff, other bits are like soap, and other bits smell bad. You can still do tasks with it but its harder and makes causes more mistakes to be made because your control of and through it are impaired.

11. Bad eyes, see badly fitted glove above

12. Check description where it says "In other words, it is one god with two bodies"

13. I think what the person using the true name thinks makes a really big difference if there are multiple same true names. I can't think of a time that someone's true name has been used in a campaign without specifically thinking of a particular person or being.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:19 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
kiralon wrote:
1-2
It is standard but it very specifically states + to spell strength and the prototypical powers are stated to be definitely not spells. Would a multiclas wizard/diabolist add his spell strength from being a wizard to wards?
However the fact that a standard save is mentioned it makes you think its spell magic, so still confusing.

Greetings and Salutations. Does it state "+ to spell strength" (or equivalent), or just that it's not a spell? The section clearly states it's not a spell, and then goes on to detail that mortal can't learn them.

On page 89, last sentence of the first paragraph (second column) and again in the second paragraph (second column) starting Prototypical Deific Powers, under "Cost of P.P.E.", and again in "Cost in Body Investment", Deific Powers are referred to as "invocations." So, from what I can tell, they're not spells in the sense that Practitioners of Magic cannot learn them, but they're Invocations in the sense of how magic works. As such, I'd think Spell Strength and Save vs. Magic apply (unless stated otherwise, such as Dispel Deific Curse or even Greater Metamorphosis: Demonic).

Axelmania wrote:
Do you figure "Dispel Deific Power" simply is not a countermeasure one can "during casting" to interrupt it before it takes effect, like a dodge/parry/entangle?

First, "dodge/parry/entangle" all cost an action by default. Yes, Parry as well, though it has an easy requirement (skill in hand to hand) to change the Parry cost. So simply costing an action shouldn't negate something being a countermeasure.

Second, Dispel Deific Power (on page 94) states: "can attempt to eliminate the effects ... [snip] ... if the deific power is still being actively manipulated by the other god." So, if the other god isn't "actively" manipulating the Deific Power, by what's written, the power cannot be dispelled. In this case, as written, I'd say the Deific Power must be active before this ability can counter it. In theory, this may also prevent the nullification if the opposing god activated the ability and then just forgets about it and doesn't "manipulate" the ability again.

I don't really intend to get involved in the rest of this debate, but I thought of the above so figured I'd share. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:25 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
Axelmania wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
@ both the OP and kiralon
Standard saving throws are based off the spell strength of the caster.

Not if it's a standard savings throw vs poison.
Comment: We are talking about the standard saving throw vs magic in this topic because you defined that was what we were going to be talking about. So don't be "difficult' but trying to confuse what is being talked about with ill relevant distractions.

Answer: If the magic spell's save is vs poison then it is not the standard save vs magic


drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Deific curses are +3 spell str over what mortals can muster (mortal limit for curses is a spell str of 15.)

Ley Line Walkers manage a +4 by level 13 in RUE. Suppose I'll need to recheck the Wizard OCC.
Answering comment: All mortal mages Standard spell str. is limited to a cap of 16.


drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
3 it would depend on the deity, but I would just go with 0.00018 seconds.

=/

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
4 moot doesn't take more then one APM to use deific powers.

How can we be sure of this?
None of the powers say they take longer than this.


drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
5 Moot, if a denied has been blocked from being in a plane of reality then a 2nd manifestation can not be created there.

Being banished stops you from physically traveling there, but not using deific powers.

I'm positing that since I think a Secondary Manifestation is a distinct thing suffering distinct effects that it should be made fresh without baggage like that.
A second manifestation is the deity being there. Since the deity is banned from being there a 2nd Man. can't be there ether. This is stupidly simple concept that I'm surprised that the question even got asked.



drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
6 moot due to it can't happen, see answer for part 5.

Drew, part of this question is if a SM can create minions, which is not related to the question of whether or not they inherit a Banish.
My answer is correct in when taken in conjunction with the answer for #5 since the Question you asked was in conjunction with question #5 as if the answer for #5 was yes. Since the answer for #5 was No!, this questions basic formation ideas are moot. Thus the answer you got saying it was moot in face of the answer for #5.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
7 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

Drew I'm getting the impression you chose not to read a lot of these points, because this is about Minions being banished not manifestation
My answer is correct in when taken in conjunction with the answer for #5 since the Question you asked was in conjunction with question #5 as if the answer for #5 was yes. Since the answer for #5 was No!, this questions basic formation ideas are moot. Thus the answer you got saying it was moot in face of the answer for #5.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
8 (and no you are not 8) ) again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

This is also unrelated to five (I'm thinking you're phoning it in and not reading at all here) the question is about interpreting 'half power' for manifestations. "Double cost" is one approach I'm asking thoughts on.
My answer is correct in when taken in conjunction with the answer for #5 since the Question you asked was in conjunction with question #5 as if the answer for #5 was yes. Since the answer for #5 was No!, this questions basic formation ideas are moot. Thus the answer you got saying it was moot in face of the answer for #5.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
9 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

100% confident you're trolling or not reading at all, at this point, you just spammed the same sentence over and over, because this was a followup to 8 about Deific Power costs, and has nothing to do with Banishment inheritance.
Giving the correct answer is not trolling. Doesn't matter if that correct answer is the same as the last correct answer for the last question answered.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
10 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

The "something that cant't happen" you keep referring to from 5 is "create Manifestation in dimension I'm Banished from", which has nothing at all to do with my question about True Names.
My answer is correct in when taken in conjunction with the answer for #5 since the Question you asked was in conjunction with question #5 as if the answer for #5 was yes. Since the answer for #5 was No!, this questions basic formation ideas are moot. Thus the answer you got saying it was moot in face of the answer for #5.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
11 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

12 again, moot because it assumes something that cant't happen, see answer for part 5.

Further inappropriate replies to discussion of True Names. Actually report-worthy TBH
My answer is correct in when taken in conjunction with the answer for #5 since the Question you asked was in conjunction with question #5 as if the answer for #5 was yes. Since the answer for #5 was No!, this questions basic formation ideas are moot. Thus the answer you got saying it was moot in face of the answer for #5.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
13 part one: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 2: Crystal ball: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 3: sum. o : it does not matter the spells get the one the caster means to get.
part 4: which one: it does not matter the spells get the one the caster intends to get.

Thank you for at least paying attention to this one.

I was paying attention to all of them. It was just that the core idea from which they were asked was flawed and thus Moot, and thus the only answer for them was 'They are unanswerable due to the fact that the core ideas behind them were flawed.' This is what it means when someone says the answer is moot.

Do you know of any spells that can operate on a name alone though, with no other detail?
I believe there is on in the NS/NB core books (or maybe in a sourcebook) that is a last strike spell.

If that is the case then how would the caster mean to get a particular one of the name-sharers?
As with the other answers, it follows the caster's intent.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Opinion: the OP for this topic was meant to start an argument,
or use whoever's opinion was the same as the OP's own as a basis for those opinions so they can ignore canon.
Both of which are a crazy way to run a railroad.

So you are saying that the intent of this thread is either:
    1) to seek disagreement
    2) to seek agreement

One can seek opinions knowing that opinions may be either of these two things.

I can tell you I wasn't looking for spammy replies like you gave for 6-12, and even 5 doesn't really elaborate on why you think Banishment blocks using this particular Deific Power via sight.

6-12: I gave your the only answers to those questions that are CORRECT. I to wouldn't like someone else telling me I was wrong. But 'correct is correct' and 'wrong is wrong.'
Did I get lazy and just C&P'ed, yep.

Why think up new ways of saying the same thing when you already have the correct answer written out already?

The basic principle is to say the correct answer multiple times till the listener realizes that what you are saying is the correct answer by not changing what you are saying.
Real World example: In the last Impeachment Trial the prosecution kept saying the same story based on the evidence. Repeating it without changing it.


kiralon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
@ both the OP and kiralon
Standard saving throws are based off the spell strength of the caster. For mortal mages the target number is typically between 12 and 16. Deific curses are +3 spell str over what mortals can muster (mortal limit for curses is a spell str of 15.) So I would expect that the standard saving throw target numbers would be from 15 to 19. Depending on the deity.

I'm curious about the limit of 15 for curses for mortals, does it say that somewhere or is that just the caster level spell strength.
Same with deific curses being +3 strength, I think they should be stronger, the deific power of curse is a nat 20 save, and isn't a spell, but does it say that somewhere as well, i have an ok knowledge of curses but still use the rules out of first ed high seas, maybe mom has an update?

For number 5, a god creates a secondary manifestation in devil, and the primal manifestation gets banished what happens to the secondary manifestation was the way i was thinking he was talking about, my opinion is the manifestations home is where the gods home is, and it would likely drag the second manifestation along with it, but i probably wouldn't decide that until it happened.
I think you are thinking all the abilities he was asking about was if the secondary manifestation was doing it from a banished realm, i think question 1-4 are linked and 5+ are mostly separate from main unnumbered questions,

but i am very curious about the curse spell strength limit (I have given the pc's more negatives than they should have gotten for example)

Curses: I dis some research for a topic Axe OP'ed and found out those answers about curses. (at least I think it was Axe...*shrugs* it was weird enough for me to remember it that way.

It the Deity is banished from the realm then the deity is banished from the realm. primary, secondary...doesn't matter. The deity is banished completely.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:54 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Answering comment: All mortal mages Standard spell str. is limited to a cap of 16.

Greetings and Salutations. Wizards get 5 level bonuses to Spell Strength for a total of 17. So do you mean the cap is 17 (unless we find a different class that goes even higher), or that the final bonus of a Wizard can't be used due to some rule you didn't list, or something else?


drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
kiralon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
@ both the OP and kiralon
Standard saving throws are based off the spell strength of the caster. For mortal mages the target number is typically between 12 and 16. Deific curses are +3 spell str over what mortals can muster (mortal limit for curses is a spell str of 15.) So I would expect that the standard saving throw target numbers would be from 15 to 19. Depending on the deity.

I'm curious about the limit of 15 for curses for mortals, does it say that somewhere or is that just the caster level spell strength.
Same with deific curses being +3 strength, I think they should be stronger, the deific power of curse is a nat 20 save, and isn't a spell, but does it say that somewhere as well, i have an ok knowledge of curses but still use the rules out of first ed high seas, maybe mom has an update?

Curses: I dis some research for a topic Axe OP'ed and found out those answers about curses. (at least I think it was Axe...*shrugs* it was weird enough for me to remember it that way.

So no actual reference you can provide? I much prefer the ability to verify information instead of taking something said on the internet as fact. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:08 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
There are two places that talk about Curses. The PF2 core book and TLotD book 2 pages 48-50.

Only Gods, demon lords and high level witch and necros can have a curse spell str. of 15 or 16.

There are but two curses that the saving throw is a nat 20. And they are both Deific Powers detailed in the D&G book. There is another Deific curse vs an individual that has no saving throw for it.

After rereading the text I take back the +3 to spell str. I miss remembered that bit.

*looks at Axe* this is fully separate from banishment question #5 and the Moot Q's 6-12. Because you stipulated set up for those questions was that the deity was already banned from that realm.

@ Pry The only question with a '?' in a run-on sentence that by my reading asking me why I knew what I did about curse's saving throws. Which I answered as I understood it.
Yes, after rereading that post I did discover that he didn't write the asking for where the information was in a sentence w/o a '?'. Which I took as a statement and not a question.

Wizards' bonuses...never really did count them in the PF2 core book. In Rifts and HU they top out at 16. *shrugs*

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:39 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
Prysus wrote:
On page 89, last sentence of the first paragraph (second column) and again in the second paragraph (second column) starting Prototypical Deific Powers, under "Cost of P.P.E.", and again in "Cost in Body Investment", Deific Powers are referred to as "invocations." So, from what I can tell, they're not spells in the sense that Practitioners of Magic cannot learn them, but they're Invocations in the sense of how magic works. As such, I'd think Spell Strength and Save vs. Magic apply (unless stated otherwise, such as Dispel Deific Curse or even Greater Metamorphosis: Demonic).
[/justify]


But it doesn't say + to invocation strength, it says plus to spell strength, and as you pointed out it specifically says its not a spell. Wards are invoked, that's why I asked if spell strength would add to wards, spell strength is either a magic booster or just a spell magic booster. I use the latter because
Spell strength (the number others must save against when the character casts a spell): +1 at levels two, four, eight, twelve and fifteen.
Starts at 12.

Is what the description says, and it specifically says they aren't spells as you mentioned.

And when I think about it I don't think the spell strength bonuses should be included because of what the save numbers for the different powers are already. The powers seem to be a levelish playing field across the gods.

however as i mentioned it also says its save is standard, but standard what? Standard for spells?, standard for faery magic, standard for god magic Does god magic have a separate save like faery magic, do bonuses to save vs spell magic effect your save vs faery magic, i would say so because i'm a firster, but second ed has made fairy magic as a separate save rather than just be +3 spell strength. Why make it a separate save if it isn't a different type of magic, and ward magic is a different and gets its own save and bonuses, and the only way gods seem to get spell strength bonuses is if they have learned wizardry like a mortal (have wizardry levels). Their high level priests have a higher spell strength a lot of the time lol.

@Drewkitty
The ones out of eternal torment are classed as minor deific curses, and not a general curse, their spell strength is limitedso the save is never higher than 15 or 16, when casting remove curse you need to get a 15 or higher to get rid of it (not curses are limited at 16, the ET stipulates that they are minor deific curses and says the limitations of them), or if it came from the mortification the remove curse roll is halved, but for the minor deific curses, they can be cast by high level non-gods as well (who don't get their full spell strength bonus in some cases), which means they are prototypical deific powers, not normal curses (Which are pretty minor). There is the minor curse spell which is standard save, luck curse and phobia curse, they are all spells that have a standard save, and so a level 15 wizard standing on a ley line with Cephestrecel has a spell strength of 20, and if its a wizard/priest a prayer of strength can get it to 21(maybe). I think there is also a ring or something somewhere that also adds +1 spell strength.
The priest of darkness curse mentions it is cast as magic and also specifically states the spell strength bonus can be used, but the base save is 14, but this also uses another list of curses. (it also mentions 15 or 16 or higher to save)


@World in general
If you are multiclass priest/wizard do spell strength bonuses stack with each other from the different classes, it does just say +1 to spell strength at certain levels?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:50 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
There are two places that talk about Curses. The PF2 core book and TLotD book 2 pages 48-50.

Only Gods, demon lords and high level witch and necros can have a curse spell str. of 15 or 16.

There are but two curses that the saving throw is a nat 20. And they are both Deific Powers detailed in the D&G book. There is another Deific curse vs an individual that has no saving throw for it.

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, found a reference in Land of the Damned Book 2: Eternal Torment, page 49, second column, second paragraph of the "Note."

This reference seems to only address the "Minor Deific Curses" found in that book, and does not have any impact on spell curses (such as those found in PF2 main book) or the (Greater) Deific Curses (found in Dragons & Gods, which can't be learned by mortals anyways).

Also, in the case of Minor Deific Curses, thr limit of 15 or 16 seems to apply to gods and Demon Lords as well. In addition to the wording on page 49 (which doesn't limit this to only mortals), on page 50 (third full paragraph) tells us that the "god-imposed curses" need a "15 or higher" to save.

With all that said, thank you for the reference. I was unaware of it before, and I do enjoy learning new things. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:56 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
kiralon wrote:
But it doesn't say + to invocation strength, it says plus to spell strength, and as you pointed out it specifically says its not a spell. Wards are invoked, that's why I asked if spell strength would add to wards, spell strength is either a magic booster or just a spell magic booster. I use the latter because
Spell strength (the number others must save against when the character casts a spell): +1 at levels two, four, eight, twelve and fifteen.
Starts at 12.

Is what the description says, and it specifically says they aren't spells as you mentioned.

Greetings and Salutations. And yet, for Palladium, most spells are specifically Invocations.

They do state it's not a spell, and then go on to tell us that this means mortals cannot learn to cast them.

I'm inclined to believe that Palladium meant they're not spells on the sense they can't be learned (as we're specifically told) but still act as Invocations (which are a type of spell) for the purposes of casting.

Meanwhile, I'm opposed to the concept that Invocations are spells, and Deific Powers are Invocations, but we don't know how they work or how to save. This could be argued to be rules as written, this applies a stringent use of words Palladium is not known for and fails to provide any useful answers. You might be able to argue Deific Powers are actually rituals, but that doesn't seem to be the argument you're going for.

kiralon wrote:
however as i mentioned it also says its save is standard, but standard what? Standard for spells?, standard for faery magic, standard for god magic Does god magic have a separate save like faery magic, do bonuses to save vs spell magic effect your save vs faery magic

I'm not aware of any specific bonuses to save vs. Spell magic. I know of bonuses to save vs. Magic and specific type of magoc bonuses.

So save vs. Magic would be the general bonus. Then save vs. Faerie Magic would be a specific bonus. As such, I'd say the character gets the save vs. Magic against all types of magic, and gets to add the save vs. Faerie Magic in those specific circumstances. Note: Because it's Palladium, I'm not 100% sure if the bonus to save vs. Faerie Magic (as an example) is supposed to include the normal magic save bonus or not.

Example: A character has +1 to save vs. Magic and +3 to save vs. Faerie Magic. In most situations (whether a spell, a ritual, or a circle) the character o my has +1 to save. Against a Faeries, the character would be +4 (1+3). Or it could be only +3 (which would mean it's supposed to be 1+2, and the +3 provided already added the +1 in).

kiralon wrote:
the only way gods seem to get spell strength bonuses is if they have learned wizardry like a mortal (have wizardry levels). Their high level priests have a higher spell strength a lot of the time lol.

Some gods have a spell strength of 18. So they need to be able to get bonuses from somewhere else. Additionally, the bonuses seem to remain regardless of spell type. So Set, who is a Wizard, Warlock, and Summoner, has Strength of 18 regardless of of which type of magic he's using. Note: Algor also requires an 18, and he's only a Warlock in magical training, but does have Ward and Cricle magical powers without any O.C.C. training.

kiralon wrote:
@World in general
If you are multiclass priest/wizard do spell strength bonuses stack with each other from the different classes, it does just say +1 to spell strength at certain levels?

Multi-classing bonuses are, in general, kept separate. For example, skills are frozen at the level of the change. However, if that skill is selected again, the skill proficiency is tracked separately until the new version surpasses the frozen version.

I don't know if Spell Strength is ever specifically addressed, but if gods do receive those bonuses, Set is decent proof they don't stack. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 9:46 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
Rings, amulets etc
Spells are invocations, unless they are rituals.
To me invocation is saying some words to activate something, so anything that uses words is invoked (think acba yin cherubot kin yin seraph mytyn)
so wards are invocations to activate, same with circles.
deific powers are invocations
but that doesn't mean anything that is invoked is the same magic, its just means words are one of the focuses to activate the magic.

In rings and amulets etc
Protection from Spell Magic: Constant +1 to save. Cost: 35,000 gold.

But with faerie magic, in first ed it was just spell strength they had and not a separate save, so it seems like they want to separate out fairy magic as different now for some reason.

The bonuses for having a class do not seem to be part of the gods writeup, or for example, your save vs spells by a spell cast at you by Odin, a 25th level wizard is 12 or higher, which makes zero sense as well.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:34 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
kiralon wrote:
To me invocation is saying some words to activate something, so anything that uses words is invoked (think acba yin cherubot kin yin seraph mytyn)
so wards are invocations to activate, same with circles.
deific powers are invocations
but that doesn't mean anything that is invoked is the same magic, its just means words are one of the focuses to activate the magic.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, you can view Invocations as Language and Public Speaking or anything else you'd like, but Palladium uses Invocation to indicate standard spells (those cast by a Wizard or Ley Line Walker).

Now I'll admit it's not used as blatantly in PF, but in RUE each level of spells has "Invocation" in parenthesis. RGMG has the section (of what you'd probably call Spell Magic) as Invocations. That's the actual category/type of magic. I'm sure they use it other places as well, but those ones I found in just a couple minutes and figured that would be sufficient.

Since Palladium is using the term, and Palladium uses that term to refer to a particular type of magic, I'm going to place more value on their usage. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:06 am
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
kiralon wrote:
snip...
@Drewkitty
The ones out of eternal torment are classed as minor deific curses, and not a general curse, their spell strength is limitedso the save is never higher than 15 or 16, when casting remove curse you need to get a 15 or higher to get rid of it (not curses are limited at 16, the ET stipulates that they are minor deific curses and says the limitations of them), or if it came from the mortification the remove curse roll is halved, but for the minor deific curses, they can be cast by high level non-gods as well (who don't get their full spell strength bonus in some cases), which means they are prototypical deific powers, not normal curses (Which are pretty minor). There is the minor curse spell which is standard save, luck curse and phobia curse, they are all spells that have a standard save, and so a level 15 wizard standing on a ley line with Cephestrecel has a spell strength of 20, and if its a wizard/priest a prayer of strength can get it to 21(maybe). I think there is also a ring or something somewhere that also adds +1 spell strength.
The priest of darkness curse mentions it is cast as magic and also specifically states the spell strength bonus can be used, but the base save is 14, but this also uses another list of curses. (it also mentions 15 or 16 or higher to save)


*looks at the rambling of stuff I just reread to use in my last post that even after I just said I reread that text*
Note that some of your conclusions in the above text are off point enough to twist the meaning of the canon text.

This is going to be blunt: stop parroting the text and tell me what can you say about what "normal" mortals are limited to from the idea that GODS (and greater demons, etc...) are limited to just a spell str of 15 or 16 when they cast a curse? *no need to respond*

kiralon wrote:
@World in general
If you are multi-class priest/wizard do spell strength bonuses stack with each other from the different classes, it does just say +1 to spell strength at certain levels?


Which is the former class and which did the char switch to?
If it is a mage that switched to being a priest then when the char casts spell magic they use their old wizards spell str. and when they use magic they got from their god they use their priestly spell str.

Now, if the other way around, a priest switching classes to be a wizard....
...if they left the priesthood because they were in the outs with the god, then they get squat for their priestly powers because they are granted from the god.
...if they were assigned to switch to the wizard class....then the priestly magics would have their priestly spell str, and the spell magic would follow their wizarding levels.

In other word, no {edit} bonus stacking is allowed.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:27 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
This is going to be blunt: stop parroting the text and tell me what can you say about what "normal" mortals are limited to from the idea that GODS (and greater demons, etc...) are limited to just a spell str of 15 or 16 when they cast a curse? *no need to respond*

I guess you missed the bit where the bit that bit actually is specifically talking about minor deific curses out of Eternal Torment, and not a generic statement on curses. The Dark priest specifically says its curses can be higher strength for example, there is the curse spell. I agree about the minor deific curses get leveled at 16, but not all curses.
High level priests can add their spell strength bonuses to the potency of the curse, meaning the victim needs to roll 15 or 16 or higher, depending on the level of the priest. note the or higher
The wizard curse spells obviously goes of the spell strength of the wizard.

kiralon wrote:
@World in general
If you are multi-class priest/wizard do spell strength bonuses stack with each other from the different classes, it does just say +1 to spell strength at certain levels?


drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Which is the former class and which did the char switch to?
If it is a mage that switched to being a priest then when the char casts spell magic they use their old wizards spell str. and when they use magic they got from their god they use their priestly spell str.

Now, if the other way around, a priest switching classes to be a wizard....
...if they left the priesthood because they were in the outs with the god, then they get squat for their priestly powers because they are granted from the god.
...if they were assigned to switch to the wizard class....then the priestly magics would have their priestly spell str, and the spell magic would follow their wizarding levels.

In other word, no {edit} bonus stacking is allowed.

I was always curious if the prayer of strength the priests of light would stack with wizarding magic (and generally i write the first class first)
If a wizard/priest gets +1 to save vs magic for being a wizard, and +1 save vs magic for being a priest, is that +2 to save, or only +1.

Spell strength isn't differentiated that i can see, its all the same ability if it has the same name so at least it would go off the higher bonus is what i would think it would be, its like 1 multiclass character with prowl in both classes, he would use the highest one, and even though you would think there is a difference between them, both being called bonuses to spell strength would make you think they are the same skill. Both classes get a skill called spell casting and the priestly versions says its spells and spells effects are identical to a wizards.

But I wouldn't allow it, you would only have the priests spell strength to use, even though you should probably be ably to use the wizards.


Last edited by kiralon on Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:38 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
Prysus wrote:
kiralon wrote:
To me invocation is saying some words to activate something, so anything that uses words is invoked (think acba yin cherubot kin yin seraph mytyn)
so wards are invocations to activate, same with circles.
deific powers are invocations
but that doesn't mean anything that is invoked is the same magic, its just means words are one of the focuses to activate the magic.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, you can view Invocations as Language and Public Speaking or anything else you'd like, but Palladium uses Invocation to indicate standard spells (those cast by a Wizard or Ley Line Walker).

Now I'll admit it's not used as blatantly in PF, but in RUE each level of spells has "Invocation" in parenthesis. RGMG has the section (of what you'd probably call Spell Magic) as Invocations. That's the actual category/type of magic. I'm sure they use it other places as well, but those ones I found in just a couple minutes and figured that would be sufficient.

Since Palladium is using the term, and Palladium uses that term to refer to a particular type of magic, I'm going to place more value on their usage. Farewell and safe journeys.

aah, Rifts, Rifts is different enough that its not really palladium fantasy, the fact that it calls its spell list something different is a good reason not to, also the book of magic says that all spells are invocations/incantations, yet elemental magic(not the only one) isn't under the invocations list. This makes me think they have their own branches.


and yes. The bonuses to spell strength are stated as +1 to spell strength at levels whatever they are, so my point is invocations can be spells (spells as a lesser branch), but pretty much all magic uses the spoken word, so come under the invocation branch, with spells, wards circles etc coming of as lesser branches, and spell magic is just one of those lesser branches, spell magic is differentiated enough to have its own saving bonuses, so i would think its pretty safe to assume it has its own strength bonuses, just like circle and ward magic, and if something specifically states its not a spell, it doesn't get bonuses to spell magic, and bonuses to save vs spell magic wont help against it.
Maybe i have weird logic. Who knows.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:32 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
kiralon wrote:
11. Bad eyes, see badly fitted glove above

kiralon wrote:
9. No it doesn't, but id allow things that drain isp and ppe and chi hit both simultaneously as they are the spiritual aspect.


What I'm asking is to ask how the badly-fitted-glove analogy actually applies as a limitation though.

For example let's say we have Thoth One ("I can see through the eyes of any worshipper in the the Megaverse!") and Thoth Two ("I can see through the eyes of any Worshipper on Wormwood")

Thoth One could use Banish through the eyes of any worshipper in the Megaverse.
Thoth Two could use Banish through the eyes of any worshipper on Wormwood.

If they simply share PPE then what exactly is the incentive of Thoth Two to do the banishing?

Anybody he can use to channel a Banish (worships him) is also a worshipper that Thoth One is able to channel a banish through.

This is why I think they should have separate PPE pools. That way there is an incentive for Thoth Two to do the banishing: to save Thoth One the PPE.

It would also matter more if there as more of a time investment, since having Thoth Two do the banishing would also save Thoth One time to focus on other tasks.

kiralon wrote:
12. Check description where it says "In other words, it is one god with two bodies"

This might mean 'one soul' as opposed to 'one mind' though. If it was simply one mind then the distinction of a Secondary Manifestation not being able to see through the eyes of off-world worshippers wouldn't make sense.

Let's use Essence Fragments as another example: you can view that as "one alien intelligence in many bodies" but during the time in which it splits it's mind, I don't think there is instantaneous telepathic transference of information between the Fragment and the primary body. Nor is there any shared cost of PPE.

Prysus wrote:
simply costing an action shouldn't negate something being a countermeasure.

Agreed, though it's implied you'd have to use it right away. Plus P/D/E don't work against surprise attacks, so presumably to use Banish as a 1-action defense for a chance to stop it, you'd need to actually be aware the attack is happening. Either that you are being targeted or that someone else is and you want to defend for him (the "leap in front of fireball for Timmy in GM's guide scenario).

That might mean this is more feasible for psychic gods who have 6th sense since they at least know danger of SOME sort is coming, but I'm still not entirely sure how you go about discerning "someone is trying to Banish me so I wan to spend PPE to Dispel Deific Power as added security against needing to make a Save vs Magic"

Prysus wrote:
Second, Dispel Deific Power (on page 94) states: "can attempt to eliminate the effects ... [snip] ... if the deific power is still being actively manipulated by the other god." So, if the other god isn't "actively" manipulating the Deific Power, by what's written, the power cannot be dispelled. In this case, as written, I'd say the Deific Power must be active before this ability can counter it.

Yeah, the biggest use of it IMO per RAW would be to shut down another god's use of Hellfire or Orb of Destruction, putting to waste the bodily investment they paid to activate it.

I guess I'm just testing waters of it feasibly being used to counter "instant" deific powers like Banishment since otherwise that's a HUGE gamechanger for god v god interdimensional games.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
It the Deity is banished from the realm then the deity is banished from the realm. primary, secondary...doesn't matter. The deity is banished completely


Here is a similar scenario from Heroes Unlimited... a level 10 hero with Multiple Selves and ten clones (each 5th level) ... if ANY of the clones is banished, ALL of them are, including the main character?

How about a Wizard who casts Doppleganger on himself and his Doppleganger is Banished? The Wizard is also banished, even though he stayed safely out of sight?

I think we should acknowledge at some point that these are actually distinct characters being created here.

The original/primary manifestation may have awareness of what his Secondary Manifestation is doing (ie SM is basically like a worshipper) but there's no mention of inheriting negative conditions if the manifestation is cursed / befuddled, etc.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
this is fully separate from banishment question #5 and the Moot Q's 6-12.
Because you stipulated set up for those questions was that the deity was already banned from that realm.

These are scenarios worth consideration regardless of whether or not the deity is banned though, so I don't see why you ignored them.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Wizards' bonuses...never really did count them in the PF2 core book. In Rifts and HU they top out at 16. *shrugs*
FoM's Lord Magus excepted but you did say 'mortal' and they've wandered outside that line by then.

kiralon wrote:
But it doesn't say + to invocation strength, it says plus to spell strength, and as you pointed out it specifically says its not a spell. Wards are invoked

TBH assuming the "standard save" is vs 12 is based on "spell strength" defaulting to 12 to begin with, so if we can't consider the invocation to be a spell then I'm not sure we can appropriate the 12 base either.

Do you recall if rituals are also considered to be a form of invocation?

"Standard" rules for magic invocation AFAIK is roughyly (to paraphrase intent as I call) roll against "spell strength" (12 + bonuses) if you cast it quickly as a ritual (originally 2 melees or less, 1-3 actions in newer rules) or "ritual strength" (16, never bonuses) if you cast it over a long period of time (measured in minutes)

So maybe that should both standard options: near-instantaneous deific powers (I like 3 actions like spells of legend IMO, still pretty quick) which save at 12 (more for mage gods) and long-prep deific powers which save at 16 (perhaps more preferred by non-mage gods)

"Spell of Legend" is I think a much closer approximation of a deific power than "spells level 1 to 5". The latter can't be cast as rituals anyway.

kiralon wrote:
If a wizard/priest gets +1 to save vs magic for being a wizard, and +1 save vs magic for being a priest, is that +2 to save, or only +1.

I think they should stack. This does mean multi-classing is an easier way to get huge magic saves, but that's fine with me, because you could have +50 vs magic and it won't help you if someone knows your true name (all bonuses gone!) so magic becomes a contest of wizards who can't influence each other influencing others instead and trying to discern each other's secrets.

We also know a Mind Bond can reveal a true name so that's one road to beware of if captured.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:53 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
kiralon wrote:
also the book of magic says that all spells are invocations/incantations, yet elemental magic(not the only one) isn't under the invocations list. This makes me think they have their own branches.

Greetings and Salutations. Well ... yes, Elemental Magic gets it's own branch. At what point did you think Wizards and/or Ley Line Walkers could just learn any spell from the Elemental Magic list? Otherwise you're just agreeing with what I've already said.

For the record, there are different branches. Invocation (includes spells and rituals) magic is different than Elemental magic, and both of those are different than Circle magic*, and all of those are different than Wards, and Faerie Magic has aspects of some of those but is also their own thing. All of those are still magic (so a Save vs. Magic should cover them all), and Invocations and Elemental Magic are not the same thing (why you thought they were the same and why you think that supports your claim that Invocations within Palladium is not a specific thing is a mystery to me).

*Technically, Invocation magic has a couple of circles included.

kiralon wrote:
but pretty much all magic uses the spoken word, so come under the invocation branch

How about this, instead of me pointing to book references** and what's feeling like you just ignoring them, can you provide any book quotes where wards are referred to as Invocations? How about circle magic being called invocations? Elemental magic being called invocations? If you can, I'll likely give your stance more credibility than none at all. Until then, you're arguing your head canon overrides Palladium, and I won't waste more time.

**In any normal and honest discourse, I'd accept references from any game line. However, since you specifically want to dismiss other game lines, in this case, it should be a PF source per your own restrictions.

kiralon wrote:
spell magic is differentiated enough to have its own saving bonuses

Again, as far as I'm aware, there's no bonus to "save vs. spell strength."*** If you find one, give me a book and page number. Until then, I'm going to add this to the list of your head canon and ignore your arguments as such.

***I'm aware of "save vs. magic" which would include spells, rituals, circles, wards, etc. But you said there are different bonuses specifically against spell magic and I'm not aware of any specific save bonuses, so I'll give you the chance to back up your claims.

Axelmania wrote:
TBH assuming the "standard save" is vs 12 is based on "spell strength" defaulting to 12 to begin with, so if we can't consider the invocation to be a spell then I'm not sure we can appropriate the 12 base either.

The 12 is specifically for Spell Magic. This can be found on page 46 (Magic: Basic Spell), as well as again on page 184 (one of the pages that refers to spell magic as "invocations", for the record of a PF2 reference). First column mentions it, but has it included as part of the "Spells" discussion. Then in the second column, we see it referred to as "spell magic."

Axelmania wrote:
Do you recall if rituals are also considered to be a form of invocation?

"Standard" rules for magic invocation AFAIK is roughyly (to paraphrase intent as I call) roll against "spell strength" (12 + bonuses) if you cast it quickly as a ritual (originally 2 melees or less, 1-3 actions in newer rules) or "ritual strength" (16, never bonuses) if you cast it over a long period of time (measured in minutes)

Yes, rituals are considered Invocations as well. This can be found in PF2 page 184, first column. "The character can learn both the spell version and the ritual version(s) of the same invocation ..."

In addition, any spell level 7 or higher (PF2, page 184) can be cast as a ritual. If you use the Rifts reference listed above where Wizard/Ley Line Walker spells are listed as "Invocations" by level, that means any Invocation level 7 or higher is both a spell (quick cast, but must be done as an individual) or ritual (longer, but can be done as a group and generally with a higher saving throw). As such Rituals, by requirement, are also Invocations.

However, I'm not aware of any "quickly" cast ritual that can be done in a few actions. Those are spell version of rituals. Rituals are cast over a long period of time (minutes). If you're aware of a reference that allows rituals (not just high level spells) to be cast in only a few actions, let me know. Note: Also, the casting spells in 3 actions would be a Rifts rule, while Mysteries of Magic (MoM) specifically still has higher level spells as taking melee rounds (and actions being an "Optional" alternate rule) in Palladium Fantasy (PF).

As I stated in a previous post, there's a case for them being rituals. So, if we were going to go strictly by what is written using Palladium terms, Deific Powers are Invocations, but not Spells. That would, by process of elimination, make them Rituals. This would place their time at 10 minutes (if ruled as a level 7-10 Invocation), or 25-75 minutes (if ruled as a level 11-15 Invocation). Note: I'm not saying this is the intent, but it would be within a strict reading of the material.

I think that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:02 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
kiralon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
This is going to be blunt: stop parroting the text and tell me what can you say about what "normal" mortals are limited to from the idea that GODS (and greater demons, etc...) are limited to just a spell str of 15 or 16 when they cast a curse? *no need to respond*

I guess you missed the bit where the bit that bit actually is specifically talking about minor deific curses out of Eternal Torment, and not a generic statement on curses. The Dark priest specifically says its curses can be higher strength for example, there is the curse spell. I agree about the minor deific curses get leveled at 16, but not all curses.
High level priests can add their spell strength bonuses to the potency of the curse, meaning the victim needs to roll 15 or 16 or higher, depending on the level of the priest. note the or higher
The wizard curse spells obviously goes of the spell strength of the wizard.
.

Why do you think I was pissed off enough to post the line before the one you quoted?
Then there is the evidence in the question that You Quoted that I read your post to understand that you to be parroting the text. Which says that 1) I just read the text when I reread it and 2) You Didn't Read my post before last when I said ..
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
After rereading the text I take back the +3 to spell str. I miss remembered that bit.


And that you gave me the bird when you went all parroting the text back at me when what was asked of you was to think beyond the text.

That just shows me you are not a person that would like John Cleese' humor.

So I will give you a comment: If a deity curses someone or something, and it is not a prototypical deific curse, it is a minor deific curse. Argue pro-con, your choice. With he basic argument "how do you define what is a minor deific curse."
----------
Axe
Most supers are not SN beings. However, taking the premise you set up and and making it to look like the Banishment in the OP...(subtext written out: which if I had not made it look like the OP banishment you would of used my answer to support what seams to be your opinion even though it would of been totally a fraud to do so.)
➣If the super with the Multiple Selves was SN and from another reality, if the super gets banished it's other selves would get banished along with the super. And the same super could not send one or multiple other selves into that reality, even if it tried to have the other self come out of it on the other side of a portal that was in the reality that it was banished from, till the banishment effects wore off.

Dopplegangers are not the people they look like.

Yes, which is why I am telling you how they are are not following the Canon Text.

Deities: PM and SM are the same being. This is what you are not getting.
Real world example: Elohim has three parts: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. All of which are the same being.

If you had presented them elsewhere without the stipulation that the answer to Q#5 was 'yes' they would be answered separately from what was presented here. HOWEVER, even if they were presented elsewhere that will not effect that the answer to Q#5 is No!

And exceptions are exceptions and do not effect the generalization.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:07 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
@Drewkitty,
I think maybe I understand now, you think that those are the only 2 ways gods can curse? I thought you were just baiting me.
I define the minor deific curse as the list of Curses from Eternal Torment only, and separate to the curses that a wizard can cast (in spell list), and the curses that a dark priest can do (under dark priest), not to mention the creation of cursed items or cursing an item are not minor deific curses, except the creation of cursed item can also be a minor deific curse.
They are curses which have their own rules as well, which the gods can also do. (I class anything that can be removed by remove curse as a curse)

But i guess its also whether you believe a god has all the powers of the class its supposed to have levels in, i.e. whether your save vs spell magic from kym nark mar is 12 or 17 or possible something higher (Bonuses from 16-22). I play that the Gods abilities writeups don't include the bonuses from their classes or their attributes.



@ Prysus
As far as i can see the words spell magic and invocations are used as specifics and generalities and are interchanged to often to make proper sense
In the descriptions of some of the circles and wards it does talk about the power words being invoked, to me that makes them part invocations.
Page 136 Incorrect Circle Invocation Table is a table of bad things that go wrong when a circle is incorrectly invoked
Even page 184 where spell magic is called invocations it goes on to say
Furthermore, there can be a dozen variations of spell rituals that invoke the same basic magic.
Which goes back to the point of how can something that invokes something not be an invocation, which just goes back to my point of any magic that uses spoken word is part invocation at least. Circles and Wards are invocations and rituals. Words are ones of focuses of magic use.
So i have my head canon and you have yours, because spell magic and invocations are used in places they shouldn't be if one (invocations) is supposed to be a specific branch of magic not to be confused with using invocations in things that aren't invocations.

Greetings and Salutations. Well ... yes, Elemental Magic gets it's own branch. At what point did you think Wizards and/or Ley Line Walkers could just learn any spell from the Elemental Magic list? Otherwise you're just agreeing with what I've already said.

For the record, there are different branches. Invocation (includes spells and rituals) magic is different than Elemental magic, and both of those are different than Circle magic*, and all of those are different than Wards, and Faerie Magic has aspects of some of those but is also their own thing. All of those are still magic (so a Save vs. Magic should cover them all), and Invocations and Elemental Magic are not the same thing (why you thought they were the same and why you think that supports your claim that Invocations within Palladium is not a specific thing is a mystery to me).

*Technically, Invocation magic has a couple of circles included.

In the book of magic under page 21, under Do all spells require words, but all are invocations/incantations and usually serve as a focus. If invocations are a separate spell list what does all spells cover, the water elemental magic spell list, so you could think that elemental spell magic is an invocation as well, but as the books say they can't be learned by wizards I don't think they can was one of the points I was trying to make, and a reason why rifts books aren't a good fit. (Even though it's probably right, because under spell combat for a priest it says the spells and spell effects are identical to wizards, priests just gain the spells differently, I play priest spells as the priest being the local power source and targeting system, and the spell comes from his god through him or channelled).

How about this, instead of me pointing to book references** and what's feeling like you just ignoring them, can you provide any book quotes where wards are referred to as Invocations? How about circle magic being called invocations? Elemental magic being called invocations? If you can, I'll likely give your stance more credibility than none at all. Until then, you're arguing your head canon overrides Palladium, and I won't waste more time.

**In any normal and honest discourse, I'd accept references from any game line. However, since you specifically want to dismiss other game lines, in this case, it should be a PF source per your own restrictions.

Since your arguments are coming from the rifts line of books i believe that would be limiting, but as above in the book of magic etc etc

There are elemental spells under invocations already, and yet again, page 20 in book of magic says
Can anyone learn elemental spells
Not many [snip] elemental spells that can be learned by ley line walkers are presented under the section of invocations or wizard spells.

Again, as far as I'm aware, there's no bonus to "save vs. spell strength."*** If you find one, give me a book and page number. Until then, I'm going to add this to the list of your head canon and ignore your arguments as such.

***I'm aware of "save vs. magic" which would include spells, rituals, circles, wards, etc. But you said there are different bonuses specifically against spell magic and I'm not aware of any specific save bonuses, so I'll give you the chance to back up your claims.

I didn't say save vs spell strength, i said save vs spell magic (which does work against spell strength)
but
Protection from Spell Magic: Constant +1 to save. Cost: 35,000 gold.
Main book page 253, ring or amulet power.

and page 22 of the book of magic differentiates between save vs magic and save vs spell magic and rituals. Top left under confused about saves

So mostly this is about how palladium needs to be clearer about things/not confusing things and using things consistently.


but this has certainly increased my knowledge of magic and curses, for that i thank you both.
Back to Quantity Surveying


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:16 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
kiralon wrote:
In the descriptions of some of the circles and wards it does talk about the power words being invoked, to me that makes them part invocations.

Greetings and Salutations. A character can run without needing the Running skill. While we could try to argue definitions, we have to also look at specifics within the books and how they're used. Simply invoking something doesn't necessarily mean it's the same as an Invocation*. With that said, one of your references is actually more useful.

*I'll note now I've gone through so many books over the years it's hard for me to remember which book is where I read something. So, with Invocations, it may have been (primarily) from Rifts, though it's also possible it's from other settings as well (I haven't deep dived into this, because if you want to be strictly PF sources there's not much point). With that said, there are potential clues in PF as well, but definitely not as clearly defined. With the difference in years of printing, I'm not even sure if Invocation would've been the category in other settings yet or not when Dragons & Gods was released.

kiralon wrote:
Page 136 Incorrect Circle Invocation Table ...

Okay, and they also use the term on page 135 as well. Valid. In this case they specifically use the term Invocation. Thank you.

kiralon wrote:
Even page 184 where spell magic is called invocations it goes on to say

I addressed rituals above, so this is just agreeing with my stance already. If Level 1-15 Wizard spells are Invocations, then (by default) all Rituals are also Invocations, because they're from the SAME list.

kiralon wrote:
In the book of magic under page 21 ...
kiralon wrote:
Since your arguments are coming from the rifts line of books i believe that would be limiting, but as above in the book of magic etc etc
kiralon wrote:
page 20 in book of magic says
kiralon wrote:
and page 22 of the book of magic

So you're using the "I refuse to pay any attention to a Rifts reference and utterly ignore it, but listen to my Rifts references"? Pick a side. Accept Rifts references or refuse them, don't be a hypocrite about it though. Since you want to dismiss the reference I used early as not Palladium Fantasy, I won't waste my time with yours from the same setting you dismissed earlier. If you want to readdress this stance, I'll look at these more.

kiralon wrote:
I didn't say save vs spell strength, i said save vs spell magic (which does work against spell strength)

You are correct. Too many "Spell" terms and I typed the wrong one on accident. I knew which one you meant though, and apologize for the typo.

kiralon wrote:
Protection from Spell Magic: Constant +1 to save. Cost: 35,000 gold.
Main book page 253, ring or amulet power.

Ah, so there is. Thank you. Not sure this helps much with the topic at hand, but it was bugging me and I appreciate the reference. I do like learning new things.

kiralon wrote:
So mostly this is about how palladium needs to be clearer about things/not confusing things and using things consistently.

Agreed. And if Palladium were clear, most of these issues would be resolved. For example, I think what Palladium meant by "spell" is that it can't be learned (even though that's about the worst term for such a thing). However, since they use things like "spell" and "invocation" a bit loosely, we are left with some guesswork.

So, I'll address a few points real quick. Yes, there are multiple branches. Some of those branches also have branches. They more or less describe the method of casting. There are at least ...

Spells
Circles**
Wards**
Rituals

**As a fun note: PF2, page 46 and PF2, page 184 have different information on the saving throws for Circle and Ward magic. Page 184 better lines up with the O.C.C. information though.

Now, as far as I'm aware, there are the most branches of Spell magic, and these are effectively schools of magic. Spell magic is the type of magic cast is done by an individual and can be cast in actions to melee rounds (depending on the spell level). So, Invocation (if this is to be used as a term, but at the very least it's the should be clear enough for the current conversation to indicate Wizard spells/rituals) and Elemental magic are BOTH types of Spell Magic. This is why both Wizard AND Warlocks get bonuses to SPELL Strength. This means that Invocations are spells, and Elemental magic are spells, but Elemental magic isn't necessarily Invocation magic. Rituals are a method of casting, but can be used by other schools. So, Invocations can be both Spells and Rituals, but it's one school with two different methods of casting.

Now, with all of that said, I will concede that Invocation is not the clearest term Palladium could have used, since they did (at least) use it also for Circle magic, and we can't know for certain how they meant it in context of Dragons & Gods. But if you use the 12 as a the target number, you're using the Spell Magic saving throw while arguing it's not spell magic. 12 is the most common, because Spell Magic is the most common. Which is why, again, I'll say if you don't want them to be spells, and we're not given component/material lists then they're not really circles or wards either. Out of the categories, that would leave Deific powers as Rituals. There is no general saving throw vs. magic (but there are general bonuses to help with all branches/schools of magic). This best fits all the available criteria. Note: Personally, I don't believe Deific Powers are meant to be Rituals. However, from a game mechanic standpoint, it's the only one that really fits strictly as written.

That should cover most of it for now. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2020 6:44 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
Prysus wrote:

So you're using the "I refuse to pay any attention to a Rifts reference and utterly ignore it, but listen to my Rifts references"? Pick a side. Accept Rifts references or refuse them, don't be a hypocrite about it though. Since you want to dismiss the reference I used early as not Palladium Fantasy, I won't waste my time with yours from the same setting you dismissed earlier. If you want to readdress this stance, I'll look at these more.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the big reasons you are calling Palladium spells invocations is because of Rifts (Spell lists having invocations next to them or being in a invocations list. That is a strong argument (and probably the strongest one)
but I was just pointing out that you were using an external source to say something and then wanting me to only use internal sources to disprove them means I would have to accept an external source as accurate, and I don't accept it as accurate. I just compromised and thought i would use the rifts to debate back too, but also used palladium sources as well, so I don't think i was being hypocritical at all.
However if you put your theories forward just using Palladium Fantasy i'll happily just use palladium fantasy too.


But otherwise the only slight disagreement i have is i think that if something has a separate save it is a different branch of magic (Fairy, even though it shouldn't be)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:49 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
kiralon wrote:
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the big reasons you are calling Palladium spells invocations is because of Rifts (Spell lists having invocations next to them or being in a invocations list.

Greetings and Salutations. Possibly. Rifts was the first and easiest source I found. Both books have been out for 15-20 years, so plenty of time to slip into my subconscious as a Palladium term. Since you dismissed it for being an outside source, I have not wasted more time finding references of how and where Palladium may have used it.

I'll say Invocations wasn't a heading in Mysteries of Magic at their new spell list in the back, but that's about as much as I really checked.

kiralon wrote:
but I was just pointing out that you were using an external source to say something and then wanting me to only use internal sources to disprove them means I would have to accept an external source as accurate, and I don't accept it as accurate. I just compromised and thought i would use the rifts to debate back too, but also used palladium sources as well, so I don't think i was being hypocritical at all.

After I gave the quick and easy references, your response was: "Rifts is different enough that its not really palladium fantasy, the fact that it calls its spell list something different is a good reason not to"

Saying if something that disagrees with you doesn't count if it's Rifts but wanting to use Rifts try and prove your point is a double standard.

I haven't brought up Rifts or any other setting since. Only you ... to try and prove your point.

So yes, I asked you to follow the terms you set down first. You just refused.

kiralon wrote:
However if you put your theories forward just using Palladium Fantasy i'll happily just use palladium fantasy too.

I've thought about doing a thorough search in PF, but considering you've admitted to just trolling me in the past and you couldn't even follow your own terms, I'm not sure I have much interest at this point. If I'm just going to waste my time, I can think of far more entertaining things to do. We'll see how I feel as the week goes on.

kiralon wrote:
But otherwise the only slight disagreement i have is i think that if something has a separate save it is a different branch of magic (Fairy, even though it shouldn't be)

Meh, I didn't say it was an exhaustive list. Those were in the main book, so those are the ones I used in my example. Disagree with my examples if you like. Farewell and safe journeys

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:18 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
First of all, are you sure i am the one that said i was trolling you in the past, i vaguely remember having a discussion about this already with you about it and it going the other way.
Second I didn't say I wasn't going to, I said it being rifts was a good reason not to and then still gave excerpts from rifts straight afterwards
Third The post where you asked me not to do rifts quotes had a reference to rifts, it wasn't in the bit where you asked me not to but it was is the first one, so it made me think you weren't stopping either, thats why i said it was unfair to have quotes from rifts and then not let me.
Fourth Your last post that didn't reference something from Rifts was Mon Aug 24, 2020 7:16 am, and I still wasn't sure because if spell magic was an invocation, elemental magic has to be an invocation bit that you might have been getting that bit from rifts too, thats why i said sure lets both do it.

but the problem is, is it an Invocation as in the spell/invocation list, or invocation as a description because both fit most of the time and its how you interpret it, but since the list says spell magic i tend to lean towards spell list, (thats why i disagree with drewkitty about minor deific curses, the eternal torment book has them specifically under a list called minor deific curses, and then tells you what the limits on the minor deific curses are) which goes to the standard saving throw point, i said it tends to make you think its spells but afterwards i went on to say standard for what, fairy magic, wards etc and the saving throw number for fairy magic is in the main book under the saving throw lists, but chants, which you think would be rituals, have a standard saving throw as well, so i tend to think that the standard saving throw is that you have to work it out yourself, as wards have saving throw: standard, psionics have saving throw: standard, spells have saving throw: standard except that there isn't one. So the saving throw for greater deific power is what you want it to be because there isn't anything specific for it

And Geez, when i say lets just use palladium you call me a troll, please show me when i said I was trolling you and if i did (I still don't remember any conversations going that way)I will say i am very sorry for then because your arguments tend to make the most sense, so i always (sometimes struggle) try to understand them. I remember you asking if i was just trolling when i talked about bows unscrewing and being used a nunchuks in hotrods munchkin weapon thing, and i said something like i have seen and used nunchuks with string and you asid they wer e only chain or something, i couldn't be bothered arguing the point because the blunt bonus was going to work (in a side note google restringing nunchucks) and one other time that im pretty sure turned out to be somebody else, but i guess i do ask difficult questions and am pretty persistent.
Not to mention i didn't actually agree anywhere to only use palladium as a source, you said it and then seemed to ignore it yourself. I thought that would have shown by my responses.

P.S. And as ridiculous as it sounds, if there is a skill for something, if you don't have the skill, you can't do it I'm pretty sure, so that should apply to running by the rules as well, and considering the speed boost it gives i think its almost true because it doesn't say anywhere i could see that moving at your full speed was running. ROFLMAO
Palladium, the world of speedwalkers


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:28 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
I lost my big reply by accidentally clicking reload... from what I can remember of typing w/ requoting everything...

1) why should a supernatural instance of Multiple Selves operate differently than normal in terms of banishing?

2) what if supernatural copy gets hit instead of supernatural original?

3) if newly created copy inherits banish, should this mean copies inherit other active spells like Armor of Ithan?

4) why use father/son/spirit from Christianity (which Palladium ignores) instead of Krishna/Vishnu which CB2 defines as distinct beings?

5) while on the topic of avatars: do you think banishing a Nightlord's avatar also banishes the nightlord? If so, do other spells cast on Nightlord Avatars (from Nightbane RPG) also automatically affect the original?

6) what happens if just one half of a Splittin Image (Nightbane Talent) is affected by a spell? Does the other automatically get affected too

7) how can Primary Manifestation (full power) and Secondary Manifestation (half power) share the same mind if SM is unaware of what PM sees through offworld eyes?

8> since Deific Powers are logically rituals by default (per prysus argument) would you allow TTGD rules to create spell versions of them? I could see magic gods like Thoth creating faster-use versions for emergencies, but perhaps they should all bump up body investment by 1 tier to dissuade casual use.

9) presumably "invocations" are called that because Words of Power "invoke" beings like demon lords / old ones / dragon-gods / elfy / angels by name. Warlocks call upon beings too (elemental intelligences) but perhaps in a more primal way since such beings probably don't have names, and they don't target any one in particular, just a class of entities? IE in speaking the "elemental language" they're just like "BIG BIG FIRE COME HELP ME" but can't re-summon one in particular who might have memories of helping you in the past (assuming they have any notable long-term memory at all..)

10) would it even be possible to "name" an initially-nameless creature like an Elemental so as to know their true name and be able to easily magically dominate them? This type of thing would allow wizard parents to magically dominate their kids (they know the name since they gave it to them) but maybe that type of thing is only possible for some creatures and others don't have true names?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:07 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
1) why should a supernatural instance of Multiple Selves operate differently than normal in terms of banishing?
Not Sure what you mean, is multiples selves the spell?
2) what if supernatural copy gets hit instead of supernatural original?
Ditto
3) if newly created copy inherits banish, should this mean copies inherit other active spells like Armor of Ithan?
Yes, otherwise its not a copy.
4) why use father/son/spirit from Christianity (which Palladium ignores) instead of Krishna/Vishnu which CB2 defines as distinct beings?
Was too controversial back in the day i think
5) while on the topic of avatars: do you think banishing a Nightlord's avatar also banishes the nightlord? If so, do other spells cast on Nightlord Avatars (from Nightbane RPG) also automatically affect the original?
Don't know enough about nightlords, but i'd generally give the nightlord a save as well
6) what happens if just one half of a Splittin Image (Nightbane Talent) is affected by a spell? Does the other automatically get affected too
If they are controlled by one mind and its a mind affecting spell yes, if its 2 actual minds id say no
7) how can Primary Manifestation (full power) and Secondary Manifestation (half power) share the same mind if SM is unaware of what PM sees through offworld eyes?
Freaky magic of not enough editing
8> since Deific Powers are logically rituals by default (per prysus argument) would you allow TTGD rules to create spell versions of them? I could see magic gods like Thoth creating faster-use versions for emergencies, but perhaps they should all bump up body investment by 1 tier to dissuade casual use.
I don't think the deific powers are related to spell magic or invocations in any way except also using ppe, so no.

9) presumably "invocations" are called that because Words of Power "invoke" beings like demon lords / old ones / dragon-gods / elfy / angels by name. Warlocks call upon beings too (elemental intelligences) but perhaps in a more primal way since such beings probably don't have names, and they don't target any one in particular, just a class of entities? IE in speaking the "elemental language" they're just like "BIG BIG FIRE COME HELP ME" but can't re-summon one in particular who might have memories of helping you in the past (assuming they have any notable long-term memory at all..)
Not an easy one either but i play that the warlock gets a special friend who always comes to help, who will then change when he dies, makes for a better story i think.

10) would it even be possible to "name" an initially-nameless creature like an Elemental so as to know their true name and be able to easily magically dominate them? This type of thing would allow wizard parents to magically dominate their kids (they know the name since they gave it to them) but maybe that type of thing is only possible for some creatures and others don't have true names?
Not straight away . . but yeah, after hanging in the human world with his human friend, I still think its a good idea, not to mention i use elemental lords who can be summoned if you know their name (and can contain them so they don't destroy the area around them)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:41 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
.

1) Mystical Banishment works on a Whole of the SN being. Not just parts of the SN being.

2) That would be a question so a different topic.

3) Banishment is more closely alined with being cursed, not being bespelled. So if the original has been cursed then logiclly the other self would be cursed also.

4) I said it correctly in that I was giving a real world example of how a deity can have multiple bodies (or maybe to say personas would be another way to say it) while all of them being the same deity. It is hard to talk about n dimentionale beings to minds who only know 3D.

5) the answer to this depends on whether or not an avatar is another maisfestation of the deity or or if the deity is possessing someone's body. If it is a manesfestion then the avatar body and spirit would be expelled with the rest of the deity and couldn't re-enter where it was banished from. If the avatar is the deity possessing a body/someone, then the possessing part of the deity would be banished along with the rest of the deity.

6) Both sides of the Nightbane using that power are the same person. Just like when the NB features that expresss in two bodies, the two bodies are still the same person.

7) Deities are multi-dimensional beings. Since they are they don't follow the rules Meer 3D beings do.

8, 9 &10) These are things you will have to ask in the magic forum. This is not the proper place to answer those questions.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:58 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Greetings and Salutations. I'll start with addressing a few rules things, and then address the rest which is more personal in a Spoiler tag.

kiralon wrote:
P.S. And as ridiculous as it sounds, if there is a skill for something, if you don't have the skill, you can't do it I'm pretty sure, so that should apply to running by the rules as well, and considering the speed boost it gives i think its almost true because it doesn't say anywhere i could see that moving at your full speed was running. ROFLMAO
Palladium, the world of speedwalkers

PF2, page 16, under the "Speed" description we get how far "the character can run in one minute." That's part of the attribute write-up.

kiralon wrote:
but the problem is, is it an Invocation as in the spell/invocation list, or invocation as a description because both fit most of the time and its how you interpret it

With Palladium, it's never certain. Truthfully, I had thought Palladium used Invocation (at least mostly) consistently. The fact they used it similarly on page 184 of PF2 main book (which is the main section I was using during my first post) made sense. However, as pointed out, they also used in the Summoner section regarding circles (which was pointed out to me). I was looking through the book a bit more today, and outside of page 184, PF2 main book seems to like the word "incantation."

Spoiler:
kiralon wrote:
First of all, are you sure i am the one that said i was trolling you in the past, i vaguely remember having a discussion about this already with you about it and it going the other way.

For the record ...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=151895&p=2937891&hilit=trolling#p2937891

Cutting out all the other stuff though ...

kiralon wrote:
Prysus wrote:
I'm not sure if your mind is seriously that gone at the moment or you're just trolling. Either way, you're coming close to my ignoring your posts as a whole because I really hate people who just want to waste my time.

and yes this is a trolling question to be ignored if you want but you made an amazing statement a few years ago saying you play vanilla palladium straight from the book, and in my opinion you have to house rule stuff because there are too many errors to play straight from the book. So if it seems like I throw a lot of stupid stuff your way its because of that, I cant help myself,

Believe me, I haven't forgotten, as it still brings up ill feelings just thinking of that thread. By the way, you never did back up your claim about what you think I said.

kiralon wrote:
Third The post where you asked me not to do rifts quotes had a reference to rifts, it wasn't in the bit where you asked me not to but it was is the first one, so it made me think you weren't stopping either, thats why i said it was unfair to have quotes from rifts and then not let me.

The only mention of Rifts in that post was my quoting you using a Rifts book, or where I was talking to Axlemania?

With Axlemania I specifically used "If you use" before the Rifts reference as it would be an individual call, and he had seen neither a positive nor negative remark from him regarding its usage. I respond to different people with different information, based on individual preferences and requests.

kiralon wrote:
Fourth Your last post that didn't reference something from Rifts was Mon Aug 24, 2020 7:16 am, and I still wasn't sure because if spell magic was an invocation, elemental magic has to be an invocation bit that you might have been getting that bit from rifts too, thats why i said sure lets both do it.

Did I actually quote the Rifts book, or was it a response to YOUR use of Rifts? So you are correct. I technically mentioned Rifts. So let me clarify what I meant for you: I have not quoted Rifts or attempted to use Rifts to argue the point with you since your first complaint. A post like this one takes me a little over 2 hours to type. With more book references possibly even longer, and with less quotes maybe shorter. If someone is just going to be dismissive of the information, then I won't waste my time because an hour, two, or more for me can be far better spent.

Though as this will continue to bug me ... as stated before, my stance on the term Invocation is that it's another term for the spell list used by Wizards (and others who use the same list, such as Psi-Mystics and/or Ley Line Walkers). So let's change "Invocation" to "Wizard spells" for simplicity and translate the part of your quote that I underlined: "Elemental magic has to be Wizard spells"

If you think the concept that Elemental magic and Wizard spells must be the same thing makes no sense, welcome to my world. Maybe this ties into some quote you did from a Rifts book. I seriously don't know. As I said, I have better things to do than spend hours doing research with someone who's already been dismissive of the setting. That's a waste of my time, and it's not even close to being fun. And if the only thing that is learned from it is that Palladium is inconsistent, then it's not even close to being educational either.

kiralon wrote:
And Geez, when i say lets just use palladium you call me a troll, please show me when i said I was trolling you and if i did (I still don't remember any conversations going that way)I will say i am very sorry for then because your arguments tend to make the most sense, so i always (sometimes struggle) try to understand them. I remember you asking if i was just trolling when i talked about bows unscrewing and being used a nunchuks in hotrods munchkin weapon thing, and i said something like i have seen and used nunchuks with string and you asid they wer e only chain or something,

Close. That's the thread quoted above. Asking if bows are chained weapons is a bad question and prompted the initial question if you were trolling me. And there was some talk of the nunchaku. Though you did admit to asking a trolling question, on top of which it was added that you do ask them "a lot" because of some comment you claim I made (I say "claim", because the comment doesn't sound like me, and I suspect was either greatly misunderstood or had other context).

kiralon wrote:
i couldn't be bothered arguing the point because the blunt bonus was going to work (in a side note google restringing nunchucks)

I understand strings can be used on nunchaku, but that doesn't mean that's the version that Palladium is using. You also took the stance that the string version was the most common one. I'm not so sure on that, but maybe. But I will say the most famous versions I can think of are all chained, and the one Palladium is using is chained. Beyond that there were other issues due to the rules of the contest. I could go into more details, but really that was nearly 4 years ago now. It's taken considerable effort to respond as calmly as I have, and I doubt rehashing a four year old argument will serve any useful purpose at this point.

With that said, I think I'm done with this thread. You want to respond, I'll probably read it as that's fair and this isn't about getting the last word. But I don't think my continuing here will be productive or healthy. I thought about not even making this one, and I probably should have walked away several posts ago. But since I kind of started this side issue, I felt remiss if I didn't at least provide the when/where.
And I don't think my posting in this thread is productive any more, so I'm probably won't respond again. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:21 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2344
Comment: Kill it with Fire.
You mentioned wizards/ley line walkers, the ley line walker bit made me think you were still thinking rifts.
I did ask a trolling question, and i still think it's a trolling question because if you can play vanilla, you can play vanilla, but i did ask it with the proviso that you didn't have to answer it, but worse it looks like it wasn't you, i'm pretty sure dark elf was another but i can't find reference to them either way. I'm sorry if that has been bugging you, I totally retract that statement and say I'm a dumbass for not verifying it was you, but the search function on the palladium site has never worked well for me (and i didn't know it was bugging you to even say sorry), and i thought string nunchuks were the most common because they are the most common ones i came across myself.
So I am sorry for that
probably wont stop me from asking dumb sounding questions though.

As far as i can tell palladium uses invoke/invocation/incantation for pretty much every magic, its smacks of using a thesaurus to make same meaning things sound slightly different.
And as standard save is used across the board, from psionics to wards etc it seems that it should mean there is a standard save vs deific powers somewhere.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:52 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
1) Mystical Banishment works on a Whole of the SN being. Not just parts of the SN being.

Right, so because hundreds/thousands of vampires could be fragments of a same single intelligence, casting Banish to expel 1 vampire also expels all vampires linked to the same intelligence from the area as well?

What about other spells? Does casting the spell Domination on a vampire also causes Domination on all other vampires, and the intelligence?

Where does it say to give mystical banishment special treatment, if it's the only one to enjoy this?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
6) Both sides of the Nightbane using that power are the same person. Just like when the NB features that expresss in two bodies, the two bodies are still the same person.

There is a mind not wholly in one body or the other (somewhat aware of both, shifting focus between them) which is actually more interlinked than the Multiple Selves power since you can't share memories with your dupes until you re-merge.

I'm pretty sure you track damage separately using Splittin Image (since HP/SDC of Facade/Morphus are different) as I am similarly sure you track HP/SDC to Multiple Selves differently.

I'm inclined to think this is separate pools with Manifest too. Do you concur or disagree?

At what point do effects like "takes damage" not carry over but effects like "turned into an insect" DO carry over?

Since there is no mention of focus-shifting for Manifestation (as w/ Splitting Image) the copy probably just operates with it's own distinct full focus like Multiple Selves, I'm thinking.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:54 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15948
Location: Eastvale, calif
Vampires: Trying to twist the ideas presented by bringing up the exceptions so you can look like you're not wrong does not make you right.

The traditional vampires stand at vary most tangentially related to this discussion only in the part that a god-like-in-power-being has splinter essences in a realm. Other then that they stand outside the discussion for multiple reasons.
---------
What the text says is that the ATTENTION of the char's mind isn't equally divided between the two bodies.
Not that the mind is divided.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.

Crimson
Eleven
Delight
Petracor


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:54 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5980
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Vampires: Trying to twist the ideas presented by bringing up the exceptions so you can look like you're not wrong does not make you right.

Why would they be an exception?

I'm bringing them up to try and figure where exactly you're choosing to draw the line and why.

This would also apply to situations like Soulless Xombies which are possessed by fragments of Nxla.

Don't the random AI tables allow some AIs to actually have HUNDREDS of fragments?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
The traditional vampires stand at vary most tangentially related to this discussion only in the part that a god-like-in-power-being has splinter essences in a realm.
Other then that they stand outside the discussion for multiple reasons.

Why I bring them up is to address the idea you've proposed that using Banish (not sure if you mean just the deific power or also the spell) somehow targets more than what is in range (ie sight) but also things linked to the target.

IE you're choosing to consider things a "collective target" merely because of a shared essence.

I don't see any precedent or explanation from you for why shared essence would mean shared consequences though.

It seems kinda pulled out of thin air.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
What the text says is that the ATTENTION of the char's mind isn't equally divided between the two bodies.
Not that the mind is divided.

Splittin Image is probably (despite the insinuation of their similarities in the text) a very different situation than the Nightlords and their Avatars, I'll admit. It does seem that the Nightbane Talent is a little more high-maintenance and vulnerable (ie mind-control one half, you mind control the other?) whereas I don't get the impression that Avatars work that way...

Especially since Avatars can actually rebel against masters and have their own little schemes going against a master's wishes. Not something ever hinted at with Splittin Image.

I guess my question would be, if you agree to this distinction: why would Manifestation function more like Splittin Image and less like Ba'al Avatars?


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group