Board index » Across the Megaverse® » Palladium Books® Games Q. & A.

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:01 am
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 650
Comment: They/Them
I could see arguments for either interpretation, but I'm hoping to find a page reference for an example of this, such as a Ley Line Walker being taught a spell by a Mystic or a Wizard learning a spell from a Priest. There is text that hints at this sort of thing, such as the section on The Dweomer Institute in WB16r, but it doesn't come out and say that it occurs. My guess is that PFRPG would be the most likely source, but I'm saying that due to not being as conversant with the material.

An interesting consequence of intuitive casters being unable to teach spells to non-intuitive casters is that certain fields of magic become intuitive only. Two examples of this are Biomancy and Chaos magic.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:17 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5888
Page 142 of the Palladium RPG (revised edition from the 80s, not "Palladium Fantasy RPG 2nd Edition" from the 90s) allows "PRAYER OF INTERVENTION" to do this. This was one of the 3 prayers a Priest of Light could use. Priests of Darkness could not, they had summoning minions instead.
    1) "cast ANY spell, of any level, that his god(s) knows"
    2) "Or the prayer of intervention can be used to gain temporary knowledge of spell magic so that it can be sold, granted, and/or taught to a wizard. This knowledge is granted ONLY to priests sixth level or higher"
Pg 52 also mentioned it under "PURCHASING MAGIC" for the Wizard OCC: "Clergy - Only a sixth level priest (or higher) can sell magic spells for the good of the church."

Pg 53 had a pricing breakdown and stuff.

Although POI exists in 2nd ed, pg 65 seems to have removed this option. They can still use the miracle to make spell scrolls though, and wizards have a % chance to learn spells from scrolls, so that's the closest approximation of how to do this if you want to play on the SDC version of the Palladium World instead of the HP version.

I'm not sure about an Intuit > Non-Intuit transfer in Rifts, but there is some implication that the reverse may be possible.

Merctown 68 refers to a Golemgoyle ritual (you take the essence of an entity or minor demon and put it into a gargoyle statue) and one of the creator types is actually a Stone Master who don't get spells as they level up at all... Earth Warlock / Earth Elemental Fusionist are also mentioned and since no spell level is given, it's not clear at all how they would learn this except being taught it.

I should stop bragging about that spell, it's so great since it doesn't require SDC sacrifice and still gives a permanent minion. High Magi mass-producing this (I imagine using entities only, since Dweomer is friendly to demons) could help in explaining bolstered defences of that place.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:35 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Posts: 15693
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
High Magi already mass produce Super Golems in the form of Automations that use the essence fragments of the Three Lords of Magic, rather than a demon. Why would they downgrade?

_________________
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:11 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5888
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
High Magi already mass produce Super Golems in the form of Automations that use the essence fragments of the Three Lords of Magic, rather than a demon. Why would they downgrade?


1) Golemgoyles take less PPE to create, only 375 compared to 654 for the cheapest Automaton, an Earth Thunder

2) Golemgoyles may take less time to create. Automatons take "many months to build each body" and even the "rather quick" enchantment time is 48 hours. RUE 187 says even spells of legend as rituals don't take longer than 90 minutes to cast, so that's the most we can reasonably expect here, even if it's longer than the (BOM147: 13th level) 55-minute maximum time it would take to animate a golem. You could reasonable add some prep time for sculpting a humanoid figure out of clay to prepare for either of these rituals, but that isn't likely to take very long.

3) Golemgoyles, like Golems/Mummies/Zombies, can act independently. They don't need to have a person ordering them about. Ironically the most autonomy we see in Automatons is their "Preservation Mode" where it fights at half capacity, and only to get it's controller to safety. This STILL requires contact with a pilot who is either unconscious or injured. This doesn't work if the pilot is dead.
[INDENT]
The only exception to this is when linked to a Controller, who is still required to be within 200ft (500ft for Infiltrators) and there are limits to how many automatons one person can control, meaning you are limited by your population, how much of your population you can train, and how much of your population is awake.
[/INDENT]

4) Golemgoyles are tiny: only 3-4 ft tall. That's ~half the size of the 6-8ft tall Infiltrator who are even less versatile than most automatons since they only work when linked up to members of the Controller OCC. The smallest automaton usable by non-Controllers is the 10-12ft tall Earth Thunder, who is about triple the size of an earth thunder. This greatly limits where you could utilize Automatons compared to Golemgoyles

5) Golemgoyles heal faster untended: MDC every melee round. Automatons heal on an hourly basis unless you pump PPE into them to get an (albeit 3x superior to Golemgoyle) per-round rate.

6) Golemgoyles do not drain PPE/MDC from the Lords of Magic. Although "nobody" knows about this (I expect author intended pg 25 to say "nobody else"... surely the Lords themselves know about it?) it is at least a temporary inconvenience from them. If the Lords can immediately heal the lost MDC (they regenerate at least 10 per melee round) or PPE (grab it from a ley line or a follower) this isn't a big deal, but I think a lot of people reading this get the impression that perhaps it is actually their maximum MDC/PPE which is indefinitely (I won't say permanently)reduced and that it can't be regained until the object is destroyed or they touch it and will it back to themself. Similar to how PPE works for Cybermages or how ISP works for Psi-Mechanics in Nightbane. If the Lords DO know about this (if they don't, I'm sure they'll be the first to eventually discover it) they could discourage High Magi from making too many Automatons, and to pursue alternatives like Golems / Golemgoyles.

7) Golemgoyles have better senses than most automatons: they have nightvision, see the invisible, and can sense the supernatural (presumably akin to a psi-stalker). Automatons are limited to the senses of their users except for the Earth Thunder, who has STI/nightvision.

8) Golemgoyles are probably lighter. The lightest Automaton (the Infiltrator) weighs 1 ton while Earth Thunders weigh 5-7. This could make is very dangerous to use them on certain terrain. Earth Thunders (and all heavier types) mention under climbing "provided the structure can support it's weight" for example. Weight limits might be extremely high for MDC structures, but there are probably some SDC structures even in magical cities like Dweomer where you would prefer to use something lighter than 1 ton. Although Golemgoyles are not officially given a weight, I think a 3ft tall stone statue would weigh less than 2000 pounds. Anyone know if we were given a weight for the basic golem?

9) Golemgoyles climb at spd 22. Automatons aren't given climbing/swimming speeds so presumably they follow standard rules for it. RUE 316 doesn't seem to have that (RUE 317 gives swimming 3xPS in yards/melee, so in other words, you swim PS ft/melee whereas Spd is ft/second... so if you had Spd 10 PS 10 you would run 15x faster than you swam) so I'm not sure what normal climbing speeds are supposed to be. I do know you go half your speed attribute if you have the Light Body Climbing technique from Mystic China so presumably slower than that.

10) haunting entities are flooding the earth (+nearly in RUE) EVERY time a rift is opened, which would be a bigger-than-average problem in magic cities like Dweomer. This gives you a way to safely contain them if you don't want to kill them. "Immure Entity" (heart of magic 88) is cheaper, but it allows freeing the entity via exorcism. Destroying the object also works, meaning you'd need to provide your own suitable MDC jail if you didn't want that to happen very easily. Create Golemgoyle provides it's own MDC structure by converting SDC clay into MDC stone, just like the Create Golem ritual. If you want to imprison a minor/lesser demon, Golemgoyle costs the usual 375 while Immure doubles to 400, making Golemgoyle cheaper.

11) Golemgoyles are immune to cold and fire. Not even the Fire Demon or Ice Drake seem to enjoy that. Even standard golems are only impervious to NORMAL fire and cold (taking 1/2 from magic versions).


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:13 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15671
Location: Eastvale, calif
The short answer to the OP title question is no.

A Mage might derive inspiration from what spells an intuitive caster and granted casters use. But the Mage would have to R&D the spell for themselves. (See the NB: Through the Glass Darkly books for the guidelines for modern times. The guidelines for medieval style cultures are found in one of the Mysteries of Magic books.)

_________________
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.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:44 am
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 650
Comment: They/Them
Insofar as this thread is concerned with citations like that provided by Axelmania, blanket statements of personal opinion presented as fact are, to put it charitably, counterproductive.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:03 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15671
Location: Eastvale, calif
Curbludgeon wrote:
Insofar as this thread is concerned with citations like that provided by Axelmania, blanket statements of personal opinion presented as fact are, to put it charitably, counterproductive.

I gave the canon answer. Not my opinion.
Yes, I didn't give citations because, as I stated, giving the answer in the short form.
The text referenced is in the MOM books in long form.
In which it states that only Mages can teach other Mages their spells. This idea should be in the text that talks about how long it takes for a mage to teach another mage a spell.
The idea that Intuitive and granted magic users can not teach others their magic is presented within nearly every PB game with magic class text & magic text in them. (the exceptions being the old/decanonized like PF1 before they had the mage teaching mage rules or the ones where the ability for magic is racially linked like in RT1 & RT2.)

To comment on Axe's answers,

Boiling things down to the core idea the priest is not teaching the mage magic. The priest is selling the mage a scroll that the mage can do a scroll conversion attemept with. So 'No, the priest is not teaching the mage a spell'. Which is in line with my short form answer.
AND,
Axe, never directly answered the core question that was presented in the OP title.

_________________
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.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:18 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 10754
Location: Peterborough, Ontario
Comment: Yeah yeah yeah just give me my damn XP already :)
I think intention of it would be no regardless of examples otherwise. Palladium is notorious for inconsistency within itself especially for rules as written versus rules as intended.

Intuitive mages should not be able to teach it since they themselves have no real idea how they do it.

_________________
I am very opinionated. Yes I rub people the wrong way but at the end of the day I just enjoy good hard discussion and will gladly walk away agreeing to not agree :D

Email - jlaflamme7521@hotmail.com, Facebook - Jaymz LaFlamme, Robotech.com - Icerzone

\m/


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:58 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5888
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Axe, never directly answered the core question that was presented in the OP title.

Yes I did: I gave page numbers which allow DIRECT TUTELAGE of priests>wizards in 1st ed PRPG.

They're removed from 2nd-ed but priest scroll creation wasn't removed, so you could take that path.

So could a Mystic who learned Create Scroll, presumably. Although I don't know if any Rifts OCCs have the ability to learn spells from scrolls like the wizard does....

Ah wait here it is, RMB 165. It's not an OCC ability but rather "a literate mage has a chance" which may perhaps apply to ANY magic OCC...

RUE 191 still has it. Still nothing which seems to opt out the intuitive types like Mystic / Fusionist / Warlock / Priest.

I think we still would assume that as the general spirit of things. We would assume that if you can't be taught in-person (often the assumption if it doesn't explicitly say you can be taught in person) that you can't learn from a scroll...

But beyond that assumption I'm struggling to find a forbidding RAW here to prevent certain OCCs (assuming they of course have Literacy) to qualify as a "mage" and use RMB165/RUE191. Is that maybe in some later book or errata?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:30 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15671
Location: Eastvale, calif
My apologies. You did say if the game was PF1 it was possible for priests, after a successful prayer of intervention. But is was buried within other irrelevant text.

However, there was no clear y/n answer to the question. Which is what I meant.
---
A mage learning a spell from a scroll is learning from the scroll. Not from the scroll's creator. So even thou it may be a 'work around' the specific rules about an intuitive/granted magic users not being able to teach spells. Still, intuitive/granted magic users not being able to teach spells to any other character.

RMB (1st ed) page 165 In the text about scroll magic. "a literate mage has a chance of learning spells from scrolls" I sure do like Full Quotes as to make thing plain and clear what the quote is talking about.

"Mages" are not "intuitive" magic users nor "granted" magic casters. Mages have worked to develop their ability to cast magic. It was not given to them nor did they psychically just 'know' how to cast a few spells.
These differences are talked about in the MOM books.

I did note you mostly pulled quotes from books that are not in the current canon.

Quote:
Is that maybe in some later book or errata?

The difference between mages/wizards/LLW/sorcerers.... and intuitive magic users (mystics/psi-mystics) and Granted magic users (priests/witches....) are found in the MOM books. As I pointed out in my last post.

_________________
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.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:17 pm
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 650
Comment: They/Them
Mysteries of Magic Book 1:The Heart of Magic p.55 wrote:
(P)ractitioners of the mystic arts cannot teach spells nor make scrolls.
That is what a short answer looks like. Even here, though, one must acknowledge that the phrase "mystic arts" is used in a more strict sense than in other PB titles, where it is often used more broadly. This cannot be said as is erroneously suggested above to similarly apply to the word "mage", which is often yet far from exclusively used to refer to what MoM calls "learned types", and is even in the definition on pg 8 described as a general term for "Men of Magic, spell casters, and others with magical powers." The first example I came across of a non-learned caster being referred to as a mage is in the description of warlocks on PFRPG2E p. 108, and the trend is rife across Fantasy, Rifts, and Nightbane.

While quotes from PFRPG books published before 2009 would be interesting to see, the 2004 Rifts WB16r suggests otherwise with its descriptions on p. 131 of students teaching other students shamanic and nature magic after having learned it from shamans. This seems like potentially a fun little difference between settings, much like how Psi-Mystics can cast spells silently while Rifts Mystics can't. Coincidentally, those initial shamanic teachers are referred to as mages three times.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:22 pm
  

User avatar
Adventurer

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:32 am
Posts: 707
Location: Great Britain
Curbludgeon wrote:
Mysteries of Magic Book 1:The Heart of Magic p.55 wrote:
(P)ractitioners of the mystic arts cannot teach spells nor make scrolls.
That is what a short answer looks like. Even here, though, one must acknowledge that the phrase "mystic arts" is used in a more strict sense than in other PB titles, where it is often used more broadly. This cannot be said as is erroneously suggested above to similarly apply to the word "mage", which is often yet far from exclusively used to refer to what MoM calls "learned types", and is even in the definition on pg 8 described as a general term for "Men of Magic, spell casters, and others with magical powers." The first example I came across of a non-learned caster being referred to as a mage is in the description of warlocks on PFRPG2E p. 108, and the trend is rife across Fantasy, Rifts, and Nightbane.

While quotes from PFRPG books published before 2009 would be interesting to see, the 2004 Rifts WB16r suggests otherwise with its descriptions on p. 131 of students teaching other students shamanic and nature magic after having learned it from shamans. This seems like potentially a fun little difference between settings, much like how Psi-Mystics can cast spells silently while Rifts Mystics can't. Coincidentally, those initial shamanic teachers are referred to as mages three times.

The phrase "mystic arts" in terms of it use in the Mysteries of Magic book is defined on page 7 of that book. It refers to warlocks, priests, witches and psi-mystics (and some others).
The paragraph about power words on page 21 contradicts the section on psi-mystics, saying that they "speak a mantra in order to unlock the spell magic within themselves". :?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:02 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5888
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
My apologies. You did say if the game was PF1 it was possible for priests, after a successful prayer of intervention. But is was buried within other irrelevant text.

I accept that different people's concept of relevance can be subjective. I view it as a continuum rather than discrete categorization.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Still, intuitive/granted magic users not being able to teach spells to any other character.

That's one thing I'm wondering about.

Doesn't the emphasis tend to be more along "the LLW can't teach the Mystic to cast Firebolt" rather than "the Mystic can't teach the LLW to cast firebolt" ?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
RMB (1st ed) page 165 In the text about scroll magic. "a literate mage has a chance of learning spells from scrolls" I sure do like Full Quotes as to make thing plain and clear what the quote is talking about.

"Mages" are not "intuitive" magic users nor "granted" magic casters. Mages have worked to develop their ability to cast magic. It was not given to them nor did they psychically just 'know' how to cast a few spells.

These differences are talked about in the MOM books.

A lot of spells reference a "mage", including some of the new ones in Heart of Magic.

Are you implying that Mystics/Priests/Warlocks/Witches can't use them?

I'm not sure which MOM book you're referrencing. HOM39 includes Witches as "Dark Mages" and Witches are intuitive casters AFAIK. HOM38 under "Combat Mages" includes Warlocks/Witches.

Are you getting this maybe from "Warlock or mage" from HOM33?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
I did note you mostly pulled quotes from books that are not in the current canon.

It is acceptable to game PRPG instead of PF2 if one wants a setting where priests can directly teach spells to wizards without scroll work-arounds. No harm in presenting all options.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
The difference between mages/wizards/LLW/sorcerers.... and intuitive magic users (mystics/psi-mystics) and Granted magic users (priests/witches....) are found in the MOM books. As I pointed out in my last post.

This plurality confuses me, I still see the 2nd book (Dark Magicks) as pre-order / coming soon, do some people have it already? I thought the 1st (Heart of Magic) was the only one out.

I'm hoping for some help in locating which part you're talking about.

There are references to a "mage" in new spells for warlocks in HOM so I'm not sure this is entirely a consistent point throughout the book.


          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