Forums of the Megaverse®

So it says that you can use a permanency ward "to endow the person with abilities that can be normally bestowed via magic, such as invisibility, invulnerability, resist fire, nightvision, blind, curse, magic sickness, etc. Through the process of sewing on a permanency ward (and I assume activating it once the appropriate spell(s) is(are) in place).

Will a single permanency ward make all currently active magics permanent?
Say if someone were to be buffed up with a whole list of spells like See the invisible, Sense Magic, See Aura, Eyes of the Wolf, Sense Evil, Eyes of Thoth, Tongues, Superhuman Endurance/Speed/PS, Sustain, Invulnerability, Invincible armor (since it regenerates unlike AOI or the extra SDC/MDC from invulnerability), Fly as the Eagle, Swim as the Fish, House of Glass, and THEN have the permanency ward activated would they retain all of these powers?

Note: I'm not talking about giving the character the power to cast these at all, simply asking if they would stay active for as long as the ward was still sewn to their skin.

Also what about the benefits that a Priest of light gets from their Prayer of Strenght? Its a self only ability but adds some nice bonuses.

Thinyser wrote:So it says that you can use a permanency ward "to endow the person with abilities that can be normally bestowed via magic, such as invisibility, invulnerability, resist fire, nightvision, blind, curse, magic sickness, etc. Through the process of sewing on a permanency ward (and I assume activating it once the appropriate spell(s) is(are) in place).

Will a single permanency ward make all currently active magics permanent?
Say if someone were to be buffed up with a whole list of spells like See the invisible, Sense Magic, See Aura, Eyes of the Wolf, Sense Evil, Eyes of Thoth, Tongues, Superhuman Endurance/Speed/PS, Sustain, Invulnerability, Invincible armor (since it regenerates unlike AOI or the extra SDC/MDC from invulnerability), Fly as the Eagle, Swim as the Fish, House of Glass, and THEN have the permanency ward activated would they retain all of these powers?

Note: I'm not talking about giving the character the power to cast these at all, simply asking if they would stay active for as long as the ward was still sewn to their skin.

Also what about the benefits that a Priest of light gets from their Prayer of Strenght? Its a self only ability but adds some nice bonuses.

I am pretty sure that you would need to tie the ward to a specific spell.
So for the above package that's 16 wards, not one.

eliakon wrote:

Thinyser wrote:So it says that you can use a permanency ward "to endow the person with abilities that can be normally bestowed via magic, such as invisibility, invulnerability, resist fire, nightvision, blind, curse, magic sickness, etc. Through the process of sewing on a permanency ward (and I assume activating it once the appropriate spell(s) is(are) in place).

Will a single permanency ward make all currently active magics permanent?
Say if someone were to be buffed up with a whole list of spells like See the invisible, Sense Magic, See Aura, Eyes of the Wolf, Sense Evil, Eyes of Thoth, Tongues, Superhuman Endurance/Speed/PS, Sustain, Invulnerability, Invincible armor (since it regenerates unlike AOI or the extra SDC/MDC from invulnerability), Fly as the Eagle, Swim as the Fish, House of Glass, and THEN have the permanency ward activated would they retain all of these powers?

Note: I'm not talking about giving the character the power to cast these at all, simply asking if they would stay active for as long as the ward was still sewn to their skin.

Also what about the benefits that a Priest of light gets from their Prayer of Strenght? Its a self only ability but adds some nice bonuses.

I am pretty sure that you would need to tie the ward to a specific spell.
So for the above package that's 16 wards, not one.

Is that purely for game balance or by your interpretation of the actual text of the rules?

It seems that it would apply to all spell effects. It says you can make an entire ward phrase permanent with one permanency ward. It also says it can give the living being "abilities" not "an ability" so it seems to indicate that you could do a ward phrase of "Protection from+Agony+Blind+Charm+Cold+Confusion+Dark+Death+Despair+Energy+Evil+Fear+Fire+Hate+Invisible+Light+Magic+Mystic energy drain+Sleep+Undead+Permanency" And its legal so why not a list of spells?

If we look at the NPC example (forget which PF world book) they have MULTIPLE bones embedded in their chest to power several spells.

Even if the Diabolist OCC were lacking in detail, this should clarify that it's 1 perm ward per magical effect, not 1 for all.

Multiple spells are not the same as a ward phrase.

I take the 'abilities' plurality to be discussing various options, not multiple effects in 1 ward.

Permanent or not, a person can only use one 'Protection from' on their body at a time, so you can't stack it as you're describing.

Tor wrote:If we look at the NPC example (forget which PF world book) they have MULTIPLE bones embedded in their chest to power several spells.

Even if the Diabolist OCC were lacking in detail, this should clarify that it's 1 perm ward per magical effect, not 1 for all.

That could be for a couple of of reasons
1) They didn't have a bone chip big enough to inscribe the entire rune phrase they wanted so had to use smaller rune phrases to achieve similar ends.
2) The spells that they wanted to make permanent were not all available at the same time.
3) Artist conceptions are not canon and are almost as often as not in contradiction to RAW.

EDIT: I just looked through all the PFRPG books I own (I think I have most if not all of them) and couldnt find any such artwork that shows bone chips sewn onto the chest. I also looked in rifts BoM no luck there either.

Multiple spells are not the same as a ward phrase.

True but they are similar. A ward phrase makes an effect and so does a spell.

I take the 'abilities' plurality to be discussing various options, not multiple effects in 1 ward.

Entirely possible that's what was intended.

Permanent or not, a person can only use one 'Protection from' on their body at a time, so you can't stack it as you're describing.

Good catch I'd forgotten about that. So If you have one permanent protection ward you can NEVER have any of the others even as a temporary one. Seems kinda harsh but its clear and incontrovertible.

Thinyser wrote:So it says that you can use a permanency ward "to endow the person with abilities that can be normally bestowed via magic, such as invisibility, invulnerability, resist fire, nightvision, blind, curse, magic sickness, etc. Through the process of sewing on a permanency ward (and I assume activating it once the appropriate spell(s) is(are) in place).

Will a single permanency ward make all currently active magics permanent?
Say if someone were to be buffed up with a whole list of spells like See the invisible, Sense Magic, See Aura, Eyes of the Wolf, Sense Evil, Eyes of Thoth, Tongues, Superhuman Endurance/Speed/PS, Sustain, Invulnerability, Invincible armor (since it regenerates unlike AOI or the extra SDC/MDC from invulnerability), Fly as the Eagle, Swim as the Fish, House of Glass, and THEN have the permanency ward activated would they retain all of these powers?

Note: I'm not talking about giving the character the power to cast these at all, simply asking if they would stay active for as long as the ward was still sewn to their skin.

Nope.
One ward per spell/effect, and vice-versa.

Also what about the benefits that a Priest of light gets from their Prayer of Strenght? Its a self only ability but adds some nice bonuses.

If it's magic, and it has a duration, then it's probably fair game.

Just found another contradiction in the diabolist class. It says AOE wards are stationary yet it says that when using a permanency ward it must be carved out of certain types of rare bones and combined with an AOE ward. Well this directly contradicts AOE must remain stationary because you can put permanency wards on people who can then move about and have the AOE ward effect permanently active on them.

Also can anybody point me to the art that shows multiple bone chips sewn onto the chest of an NPC? I looked through all my PFRPG books and Rifts BoM but cannot find it.

The only example of a perm. ward being used 'that I can think of off the top of my head is from the Old Ones book in the big adventure in it near the end. Where Thoth comes and casts a spell and attached a perm ward to the spell (Barrier of Thoth).

You are forgetting to include the 1st paragraph of the text, where is talks about only effecting a single magic effect, into your thinking. With that it only effects "one magical effect" already established within the text the only thing the "Note:" paragraph does is say that that single effect can be attached to a person instead to an object or place. Or to say 'The "Note:" says that a person can be considered an object if the correct procedures are followed.'

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The only example of a perm. ward being used 'that I can think of off the top of my head is from the Old Ones book in the big adventure in it near the end. Where Thoth comes and casts a spell and attached a perm ward to the spell (Barrier of Thoth).

You are forgetting to include the 1st paragraph of the text, where is talks about only effecting a single magic effect, into your thinking. With that it only effects "one magical effect" already established within the text the only thing the "Note:" paragraph does is say that that single effect can be attached to a person instead to an object or place. Or to say 'The "Note:" says that a person can be considered an object if the correct procedures are followed.'

Not in my printing (3rd 1998) it doesn't. In fact The word "single" appears nowhere in the permanency ward description. Were you talking about something besides the permanency ward?

As Tor already pointed out I was wrong about the multiple "protection from" wards being used at once. But those are not magical spell effects and are limited to 1 active weather or not a permanency ward is in play which is obviously not true with spells.

After reading the relevant potions of the ward magic text I have found that while it reads to me that it would only effect one magic effect the wording is "lacking" in that it does not make this specific, and that the text is written in a generalized fashion to cover all/most types of magic effects. Which leaves the text to be open to misinterpretation, as "par" as with most other PB gamebook text in places.

So if you have lots of spell effect on you at one time (which is obviously possible within canon) and then you sew on a permanency rune how does it know which single spell effect to make permanent?
Does it pick the one that was there first? last? the most costly to cast? the least?

With a ward or ward phrase made permanent it all has to be on the same piece of bone so it has a built in specification as to what it effects. With spell effects it either makes them all permanent or it has to be applied to one, and if one then there should be some description as to which to pick.

Also I found on p.123 "Note that a protection phrase can only protect against one thing or condition per phrase. However, more than one protection phrase can be placed on an object."

So you cannot do "protecton from+darkness+evil+undead+permanency"
But you could make multiple separate "protection from" ward phrases each protecting from one condition and ending in permanency and have them all active and permanent at the same time.

You are going to have to Talk to KS or your GM for a more definite answer.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You are going to have to Talk to KS or your GM for a more definite answer.

KS? yeah haha! and I happen to be the GM but was looking for other's views. Seems I'm in the minority that feel its gonna work on all active "enhancement" type magic.

We've got a good spot to hole up for a while and I was going to have the diabolist make a permanency rune for each in our group (except the godling since he's SN and cannot get runes sewn on). 5x120 hours is 600 hours or 10 weeks (2.5 months) working 10 hours a day 6 days a week.

Which brings me to my next question how many hours of carving for each carving roll? I would say every 10-12 hours if she has no distractions, add another check every time somebody knocks on her door or just enters the room.

2.5 months is already a long time to devote to holeing up and assumes she makes all of her carving rolls (90% ability so there is a small chance she could foul it up) as the permanency ward has to be absolutly perfect.

Thinyser wrote:That could be for a couple of of reasons

So you list three

Thinyser wrote:1) They didn't have a bone chip big enough to inscribe the entire rune phrase they wanted so had to use smaller rune phrases to achieve similar ends.

Not sure what you mean by rune phrase. Ward phrases are a series of wards. NPC in question has permanent spells, not wards.

Thinyser wrote:2) The spells that they wanted to make permanent were not all available at the same time.

Still no indication you can apply 1 perm ward to multiple non-ward effects.

Thinyser wrote:3) Artist conceptions are not canon and are almost as often as not in contradiction to RAW.

NPC example is written, there's no actual picture of his awesome bone-pecs.

Thinyser wrote:EDIT: I just looked through all the PFRPG books I own (I think I have most if not all of them) and couldnt find any such artwork that shows bone chips sewn onto the chest. I also looked in rifts BoM no luck there either.

He's an NPC in one of the world books, I think that one with the crystal psionics or something. I want to say Island... blah.

Thinyser wrote:A ward phrase makes an effect and so does a spell.

Right, but, blah, let's quote page 132 here

"makes what ever other magic effect .. permanent and always active" sounds singular to me, since 'effect' and not 'effects'

Thinyser wrote:So If you have one permanent protection ward you can NEVER have any of the others even as a temporary one. Seems kinda harsh but its clear and incontrovertible.

You could always rip it out It'd be a good idea to do that before a year's up to avoid that whole bonding process that creates a bigger boom.

Also I think it's that only one protection ward can be active... trying to remember if Diabolists can mentally de-activate their wards and if this would apply to permanence or not.

Tor wrote:Not sure what you mean by rune phrase. Ward phrases are a series of wards. NPC in question has permanent spells, not wards.

PLEASE Don't be obtuse, it was meant to be ward and rune got used by mistake Which I'm sure you knew but chose not to.

Still no indication you can apply 1 perm ward to multiple non-ward effects.

No indication otherwise either. Logically its like saying that the sidewalk is wet so it must have rained. Its a fallacy. There could be other explanations for a wet sidewalk (such as the sprinklers came on over night). The same logic applies to multiple permanency wards. It could be that he needs one permanency ward for each ward phrase, of which he has several, and one more permanency ward to make any/all current spell effects permanent.

Basically there are multiple reasons that the NPC could have multiple permanency wards. I've out lined some. Another one is the possibility that he needs a new permanency ward for each spell ability. But because several other possibilities also exist you cannot say that simply because he has multiple permanency wards that the only explanation is that a new one must be used for every spell.

NPC example is written, there's no actual picture of his awesome bone-pecs.

I found Archy who is noted to several wards "tattooed" into his chest and that a number of them incorporate dragon bone. The following powers are noted as being due to these wards: 1/3rd damage from cold and fire, 1/2 damage from energy, See invisible, 60' nightvision (even in magical darkness), speak all languages at 99%, Read/Write all languages at 99%, recognize enchantment 88%.

Lets take a closer look at these.

-There is no spell or ward that gives 1/3rd damage from cold or fire, so I don't know how a tattooed ward could do this at all.
-1/2 damage from energy is the ward phrase Protection from + Energy + Permanency.
-See invisible is the ward phrase Protection from + Invisibility + Permanency.
-60' nightvision is the ward phrase Protection from + Darkness + Permanency.
-Speak all languages at 99% cannot come from "Tongues" as that only goes to 98% and if it were from "Inflict + Knowledge" it only goes up to 80%, The same applies for read/write all languages at Except that "eyes of thoth" would be OVER the 99% instead of below and the "inflict + knowledge is only 80%
-Recognize enchantment can only come from "inflict + knowledge" except it cannot because that ward only gives the 80% not 88%

Looks like the NPC is not following the canon rules to me. Surprise Surprise Surprise

Right, but, blah, let's quote page 132 here

"makes what ever other magic effect .. permanent and always active" sounds singular to me, since 'effect' and not 'effects'

So what happens when the single spell that is active has multiple "effects" does it pick one and ignore the others? What criteria would it use to pick?

Also in other places it notes either "wards" or "spells" or "abilities" and while this certainly could be referring to the various options it could also mean that several ward phrases or spells could be made permanent with one permanency ward... Or it could even have both meanings simultaneously so that its referring to the various options and the ability to make multiple magically imbued abilities permanent. Its very vague.

Thinyser wrote:So If you have one permanent protection ward you can NEVER have any of the others even as a temporary one. Seems kinda harsh but its clear and incontrovertible.

You could always rip it out It'd be a good idea to do that before a year's up to avoid that whole bonding process that creates a bigger boom.

See my previous post about why this was wrong. Multiple protection wards cannot be combined in the same ward phrase, but multiple ward phrases, each with one protection ward, can be used at the same time.

Also I think it's that only one protection ward can be active... trying to remember if Diabolists can mentally de-activate their wards and if this would apply to permanence or not.

They can definitely deactivate wards... with the exception of permanency

PFRPG p.122 wrote:Only the permanence ward and the wards connected to it in the ward phrase cannot be deactivated; once it is energized it is truly permanent!

Thinyser wrote:

NPC example is written, there's no actual picture of his awesome bone-pecs.

I found Archy who is noted to several wards "tattooed" into his chest and that a number of them incorporate dragon bone. The following powers are noted as being due to these wards: 1/3rd damage from cold and fire, 1/2 damage from energy, See invisible, 60' nightvision (even in magical darkness), speak all languages at 99%, Read/Write all languages at 99%, recognize enchantment 88%.

Lets take a closer look at these.

-There is no spell or ward that gives 1/3rd damage from cold or fire, so I don't know how a tattooed ward could do this at all.
-1/2 damage from energy is the ward phrase Protection from + Energy + Permanency.
-See invisible is the ward phrase Protection from + Invisibility + Permanency.
-60' nightvision is the ward phrase Protection from + Darkness + Permanency.
-Speak all languages at 99% cannot come from "Tongues" as that only goes to 98% and if it were from "Inflict + Knowledge" it only goes up to 80%, The same applies for read/write all languages at Except that "eyes of thoth" would be OVER the 99% instead of below and the "inflict + knowledge is only 80%
-Recognize enchantment can only come from "inflict + knowledge" except it cannot because that ward only gives the 80% not 88%

Looks like the NPC is not following the canon rules to me. Surprise Surprise Surprise

[/quote]

Peanut gallery chiming in here, remember IatEotW is 1st edition, so I pulled out that book (revised, 4th printing). There is no 98% max for skills, in fact several went to 99% and Cook went to 100% at level 12. The spell Tongues just said "understand and speak all languages". I could not find Eyes of Thoth, but I don't have all the 1ed books. Under wards, both Fire and Cold specify that when combined with Protection from, they do 1/3 normal damage. So the NPC is actually not that far off the rules.

arouetta wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

NPC example is written, there's no actual picture of his awesome bone-pecs.

I found Archy who is noted to several wards "tattooed" into his chest and that a number of them incorporate dragon bone. The following powers are noted as being due to these wards: 1/3rd damage from cold and fire, 1/2 damage from energy, See invisible, 60' nightvision (even in magical darkness), speak all languages at 99%, Read/Write all languages at 99%, recognize enchantment 88%.

Lets take a closer look at these.

-There is no spell or ward that gives 1/3rd damage from cold or fire, so I don't know how a tattooed ward could do this at all.
-1/2 damage from energy is the ward phrase Protection from + Energy + Permanency.
-See invisible is the ward phrase Protection from + Invisibility + Permanency.
-60' nightvision is the ward phrase Protection from + Darkness + Permanency.
-Speak all languages at 99% cannot come from "Tongues" as that only goes to 98% and if it were from "Inflict + Knowledge" it only goes up to 80%, The same applies for read/write all languages at Except that "eyes of thoth" would be OVER the 99% instead of below and the "inflict + knowledge is only 80%
-Recognize enchantment can only come from "inflict + knowledge" except it cannot because that ward only gives the 80% not 88%

Looks like the NPC is not following the canon rules to me. Surprise Surprise Surprise

Peanut gallery chiming in here, remember IatEotW is 1st edition, so I pulled out that book (revised, 4th printing). There is no 98% max for skills, in fact several went to 99% and Cook went to 100% at level 12. The spell Tongues just said "understand and speak all languages". I could not find Eyes of Thoth, but I don't have all the 1ed books. Under wards, both Fire and Cold specify that when combined with Protection from, they do 1/3 normal damage. So the NPC is actually not that far off the rules.

Thanks, I don't have easy access to my PFRPG1. With tongues being able to speak and understand all spoken language and not having a % it can be assumed to be 100% (not the 99% listed in the NPC), and I bet if you could find the original eyes of thoth you would see it says they can read/write all languages which would also put it at 100% (not the 99%). The protection from fire and cold is a good find though. Makes him seem more by the book.

Does the Permanency Ward write up differ from 1st to 2nd edition at all? It's obvious by the fire and cold protection changing that they did alter some wards.

Thinyser wrote:Don't be obtuse, it was meant to be ward and rune got used by mistake Which I'm sure you knew but chose not to.

You can't choose not to know something, short of opting to bash mine own head in to cause amnesia. I have suspicions about what people mean to say, but feel it is good to discuss it in case I guess mistakenly, since I am sometimes wrong. Even if we both correctly assess your meaning, other readers may not, so corrections are more for their benefit.

Thinyser wrote:

Still no indication you can apply 1 perm ward to multiple non-ward effects.

No indication otherwise either.

When a discussion of the ability uses singular rather than plural, we do need an indication of plurality to think that is so.

Thinyser wrote:Logically its like saying that the sidewalk is wet so it must have rained. Its a fallacy. There could be other explanations for a wet sidewalk (such as the sprinklers came on over night). The same logic applies to multiple permanency wards. It could be that he needs one permanency ward for each ward phrase, of which he has several, and one more permanency ward to make any/all current spell effects permanent.

It could be that permanence wards make phase powers permanent too! It doesn't say it doesn't, after all. Or we could stay within boundaries of what is stated, which as pointed out, says "magic effect" not "magic effects".

Thinyser wrote:because several other possibilities also exist you cannot say that simply because he has multiple permanency wards that the only explanation is that a new one must be used for every spell.

Considering the hassle involved in getting such wards, it is a strong implication of needing 1 bone per effect, supporting the singularity statement.

Thinyser wrote:There is no spell or ward that gives 1/3rd damage from cold or fire, so I don't know how a tattooed ward could do this at all.

Spells can exist outside of the ones printed in books, this could be accounted to something we don't know about yet.

Thinyser wrote:1/2 damage from energy is the ward phrase Protection from + Energy + Permanency.

I'll say let's roll with this since I can't at the moment think of a spell that does it, although it is possible that a spell could be invented to do this.

Thinyser wrote:See invisible is the ward phrase Protection from + Invisibility + Permanency.

Is it? There is probably a 'see the invisible' spell floating around, rather than blaming it on wards, right?

Thinyser wrote:60' nightvision is the ward phrase Protection from + Darkness + Permanency.

Surely inventing a spell to do this would be child's play. We must assume this is the case for the NPC to fall within the bounds of "only 1 protection ward" rules.

Thinyser wrote:Speak all languages at 99% cannot come from "Tongues" as that only goes to 98%

Enhanced version of the spell per TTGD/HoM then?

Thinyser wrote:Recognize enchantment can only come from "inflict + knowledge" except it cannot because that ward only gives the 80% not 88%

So a variant spell then.

Thinyser wrote:Looks like the NPC is not following the canon rules to me. Surprise Surprise Surprise

Canon rules basically allow new spells to be created, even if there is not an utterly clear process for doing so, so it is workable within the rules.

It's fun to take the "all NPCs obey rules, stat variations are explainable by as-yet-unprinted ones" approach. Like how a Federation of Magic spell got used in the Wormwood comic.

Thinyser wrote:what happens when the single spell that is active has multiple "effects" does it pick one and ignore the others? What criteria would it use to pick?

It is possible that sometimes a group of effects could be considered a singular spell effect. Like "superhuman strength" being an effect that happens to have 2 results (SDC and PS boost)

Thinyser wrote:in other places it notes either "wards" or "spells" or "abilities" and while this certainly could be referring to the various options it could also mean that several ward phrases or spells could be made permanent with one permanency ward...

Since that interpretation contradicts the prior singular "effect" I am inclined to think it is discussing multiple permanence wards.

Thinyser wrote:Multiple protection wards cannot be combined in the same ward phrase, but multiple ward phrases, each with one protection ward, can be used at the same time.

I don't think you're right about this. Page 133 says "only 1 ward of protection can be placed on a person and activated at a time" + "subsequent wards can be activated after the previous ward and its magic lapses". This isn't talking about 1 protection ward per phrase, it's talking about 1 protection ward active per person.

You could have multiple protection wards on a living being, but only 1 could activate at a time. So you'd have to cancel the 1st protection or let it run out or negate it or something to activate other ones, and they could not coincide.

Thinyser wrote:

Also I think it's that only one protection ward can be active... trying to remember if Diabolists can mentally de-activate their wards and if this would apply to permanence or not.

They can definitely deactivate wards... with the exception of permanency

PFRPG p.122 wrote:Only the permanence ward and the wards connected to it in the ward phrase cannot be deactivated; once it is energized it is truly permanent!

Ah nice find, I was on the right page but wrong column, only read 'duration' and missed the 'ward deactivation' section under 'energizing'.

Although, presumably if you cut a permanence ward off a living being then that would deactivate it... or could someone else grab it and sew it on and get the spell effect? That's so gruesome I want to believe it...

arouetta wrote:1st edition
no 98% max for skills
several went to 99%
Cook went to 100% at level 12

The lack of cap meant a lot of things could go above 98, since IQ or OCC bonuses could easily get them past there. Particularly since OCC bonuses stacked and multi-classing was rather easy.

So you could get cooking at 120 or something to offset penalties.

Back then everyone was Hardware/Supersleuth/Genius

Tor wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Don't be obtuse, it was meant to be ward and rune got used by mistake Which I'm sure you knew but chose not to.

You can't choose not to know something, short of opting to bash mine own head in to cause amnesia. I have suspicions about what people mean to say, but feel it is good to discuss it in case I guess mistakenly, since I am sometimes wrong. Even if we both correctly assess your meaning, other readers may not, so corrections are more for their benefit.

Then say something like "I assume you meant ward and not rune but please correct me if I'm wrong." and continue on instead of being rude and claiming you have no idea what is being said.

Thinyser wrote:

Still no indication you can apply 1 perm ward to multiple non-ward effects.

No indication otherwise either.

When a discussion of the ability uses singular rather than plural, we do need an indication of plurality to think that is so.

There are several indications of plurality.

Thinyser wrote:Logically its like saying that the sidewalk is wet so it must have rained. Its a fallacy. There could be other explanations for a wet sidewalk (such as the sprinklers came on over night). The same logic applies to multiple permanency wards. It could be that he needs one permanency ward for each ward phrase, of which he has several, and one more permanency ward to make any/all current spell effects permanent.

It could be that permanence wards make phase powers permanent too! It doesn't say it doesn't, after all. Or we could stay within boundaries of what is stated, which as pointed out, says "magic effect" not "magic effects".

Thinyser wrote:because several other possibilities also exist you cannot say that simply because he has multiple permanency wards that the only explanation is that a new one must be used for every spell.

Considering the hassle involved in getting such wards, it is a strong implication of needing 1 bone per effect, supporting the singularity statement.

The logic is faulty you cannot say that simply because he has multiple permanency wards that each and every one must be for a specific spell effect. There are other equally plausible explanations. The mage NPC in question is also a diabolist so assuming he has the dragon bone and some time its not at all hard to get. As I stated earlier its quite possible (probable in my opinion) that he could simply have given himself some permanent abilities then later learned new spells and wanted those permanent also so had to make another permanent ward and attach it in conjunction with the spell.

Thinyser wrote:There is no spell or ward that gives 1/3rd damage from cold or fire, so I don't know how a tattooed ward could do this at all.

Spells can exist outside of the ones printed in books, this could be accounted to something we don't know about yet.

Already addressed its the 1st addition protection from fire ward and protection from cold ward.

Thinyser wrote:1/2 damage from energy is the ward phrase Protection from + Energy + Permanency.

I'll say let's roll with this since I can't at the moment think of a spell that does it, although it is possible that a spell could be invented to do this.

Thinyser wrote:See invisible is the ward phrase Protection from + Invisibility + Permanency.

Is it? There is probably a 'see the invisible' spell floating around, rather than blaming it on wards, right?

Why the **** are you arguing with this?

Thinyser wrote:60' nightvision is the ward phrase Protection from + Darkness + Permanency.

Surely inventing a spell to do this would be child's play. We must assume this is the case for the NPC to fall within the bounds of "only 1 protection ward" rules.

:nh:

Thinyser wrote:Speak all languages at 99% cannot come from "Tongues" as that only goes to 98%

Enhanced version of the spell per TTGD/HoM then?

Not to damned likely since A] its a totally separate setting and B] did not exist at the time the NPC was published.

Thinyser wrote:Recognize enchantment can only come from "inflict + knowledge" except it cannot because that ward only gives the 80% not 88%

So a variant spell then.

Or an NPC that doesn't follow the rules, as is common in Palladium's works.

Thinyser wrote:Looks like the NPC is not following the canon rules to me. Surprise Surprise Surprise

Canon rules basically allow new spells to be created, even if there is not an utterly clear process for doing so, so it is workable within the rules.

Are you sure there were rules for creating your own spells when this NPC was written? I'd like to see them.

It's fun to take the "all NPCs obey rules, stat variations are explainable by as-yet-unprinted ones" approach. Like how a Federation of Magic spell got used in the Wormwood comic.

I think its irresponsible of the authors to not follow published rules when making NPC's. But thats just IMO.

Thinyser wrote:what happens when the single spell that is active has multiple "effects" does it pick one and ignore the others? What criteria would it use to pick?

It is possible that sometimes a group of effects could be considered a singular spell effect. Like "superhuman strength" being an effect that happens to have 2 results (SDC and PS boost)

So its fine as long as its one casting?

Thinyser wrote:in other places it notes either "wards" or "spells" or "abilities" and while this certainly could be referring to the various options it could also mean that several ward phrases or spells could be made permanent with one permanency ward...

Since that interpretation contradicts the prior singular "effect" I am inclined to think it is discussing multiple permanence wards.

I'm inclined to agree but there is much room to interpret.

Thinyser wrote:Multiple protection wards cannot be combined in the same ward phrase, but multiple ward phrases, each with one protection ward, can be used at the same time.

I don't think you're right about this. Page 133 says "only 1 ward of protection can be placed on a person and activated at a time" + "subsequent wards can be activated after the previous ward and its magic lapses". This isn't talking about 1 protection ward per phrase, it's talking about 1 protection ward active per person.

PFRPG2 p.123 wrote:Likewise, the protection ward is useless without an indication of what it is to be protecting one from, such as darkness (including shadow beasts), energy, undead, evil, etc. — two wards. Note that a protection phrase can only protect against one thing or condition per phrase. However, more than one protection phrase can be placed on an object.

To me this says that they can have different protections at once and the rule on p.133 is simply saying that once you have "protection from fire" adding another "protection from fire" wont help you as its not cumulative. If this is not the correct interpretation then that NPC falls even further outside of canon as he most certainly has multiple protection wards active at once... Assuming you don't fudge for him and develop one of a kind spells to explain it.

You could have multiple protection wards on a living being, but only 1 could activate at a time. So you'd have to cancel the 1st protection or let it run out or negate it or something to activate other ones, and they could not coincide.

Then explain the multiple protection wards that are active on the NPC without handwavium of one off spells.

Thinyser wrote:

Also I think it's that only one protection ward can be active... trying to remember if Diabolists can mentally de-activate their wards and if this would apply to permanence or not.

They can definitely deactivate wards... with the exception of permanency

PFRPG p.122 wrote:Only the permanence ward and the wards connected to it in the ward phrase cannot be deactivated; once it is energized it is truly permanent!

Ah nice find, I was on the right page but wrong column, only read 'duration' and missed the 'ward deactivation' section under 'energizing'.

Although, presumably if you cut a permanence ward off a living being then that would deactivate it... or could someone else grab it and sew it on and get the spell effect? That's so gruesome I want to believe it...

I think they explode since they do damage to the person it was sewed to and everyone in a 5 foot radius. But it could just be some sort of damage inducing aura that it radiates when it is removed.

I would allow it to empower a single ward phrase or a single spell.

Why the **** are you arguing with this?

You seem to be presenting the idea that his magical abilities had to come from simultaneously active protection wards, which are now impossible under the rules, so I am exploring the possibility that this comes from spells, which can freely stack.

Not to damned likely since A] its a totally separate setting and B] did not exist at the time the NPC was published.

Heart of Magic is a Palladium Fantasy sourcebook.

Rules do not have to exist at the time of the NPC's publication to apply retroactively. Palladium has never stated that the list of spells they provide is the ENTIRE list of all magic.

Indeed a concept of PRPG from the outset was that what we know about only scratches the surface and that many mysteries from the 'Time of a Thousand Magics' (pretty sure PRPG did not have 1000 spells printed in it) were lost.

an NPC that doesn't follow the rules, as is common in Palladium's works.

NPCs may not conform to the rules that have been printed, but 'rules so far' are different from 'rules of the Megaverse' many of which players and GMs do not know about. The concept of unwritten rules fills in the gaps.

Are you sure there were rules for creating your own spells when this NPC was written? I'd like to see them.

They did not have to exist at the time, the idea of there being more magic in the Megaverse than what we were given stats for has been in PRPG from the outset, and can be used to explain NPC abilities that don't fall under the rules. Like for example, how you roll up gods or devil lords.

I think its irresponsible of the authors to not follow published rules when making NPC's. But thats just IMO.

PRPG has always done this, it didn't have rules on how you roll up a god, they were just given stats, which were calculated through mysterious means unknown.

So its fine as long as its one casting?

I suppose... not sure what I'm walking into here, feel like it's some kinda trap...

a protection phrase can only protect against one thing or condition per phrase. However, more than one protection phrase can be placed on an object.

Key word here is object. The rule about 1 protection ward only applies to living beings. Objects can have stacked protections, living creatures can't.

explain the multiple protection wards that are active on the NPC without handwavium of one off spells.

There is no need for me to explain something that hasn't actually been proven, those magical abilities can come from sources other than protection wards.

You already pointed out that the NPC has abilities with statistics not conforming to what we see in wards OR spells, meaning they must come from variant spells, so variant unprinted spells can be used to explain any stats that one might assume to be from stacked protection wards, since a spell could be designed to emulate a ward's effects.

Tor wrote:

Why the **** are you arguing with this?

You seem to be presenting the idea that his magical abilities had to come from simultaneously active protection wards, which are now impossible under the rules, so I am exploring the possibility that this comes from spells, which can freely stack.

So instead of agreeing that multiple (different) wards of protection can be active at a time (on people as well as objects) you instead make up new unheard of spells to explain the NPC's abilities. Sure makes sense to me.

Not to damned likely since A] its a totally separate setting and B] did not exist at the time the NPC was published.

Heart of Magic is a Palladium Fantasy sourcebook.

Rules do not have to exist at the time of the NPC's publication to apply retroactively. Palladium has never stated that the list of spells they provide is the ENTIRE list of all magic.

Indeed a concept of PRPG from the outset was that what we know about only scratches the surface and that many mysteries from the 'Time of a Thousand Magics' (pretty sure PRPG did not have 1000 spells printed in it) were lost.

I'll give you the "thousands magics" part I'm sure that all the spells listed were not all that were known. However the NPC in question does not know any variant spells only standard ones. If he had knowledge of one of a kind spells I'm sure as an arch mage NPC these would have been listed for the GM to be able to have the NPC use. Also I'm positive that rules from a book published 30+ years later were not even a factor at the time this NPC was written. Canonically it might work to explain things (now that they exist), but from outside looking in you know as well as I do that it was never intended to be one off spells or to have those spells retroactively justified by a rule made decades later.

an NPC that doesn't follow the rules, as is common in Palladium's works.

NPCs may not conform to the rules that have been printed, but 'rules so far' are different from 'rules of the Megaverse' many of which players and GMs do not know about. The concept of unwritten rules fills in the gaps.

Sure we can fill in gaps but thats house rules and not canon. To go by canon we are standardizing our ruleset so that we all have a common base to house rule from. There will always be a time when HR comes into every game (Palladium more than others in my experience) however since there is no common set of "unwritten rules" they are not up for debate when discussing canon items.

Are you sure there were rules for creating your own spells when this NPC was written? I'd like to see them.

They did not have to exist at the time, the idea of there being more magic in the Megaverse than what we were given stats for has been in PRPG from the outset, and can be used to explain NPC abilities that don't fall under the rules. Like for example, how you roll up gods or devil lords.

Except this NPC doesn't have any one of a kind magic spells that he could make permanent with a ward. Besides If there are undiscovered spells in his bag-o-tricks then there could just as easily be undiscovered wards that bypass all supposed protection ward limits allowing the NPC to stack as many as he wants. BUT since it doesn't list those I'm inclined to say that is not the case.

I think its irresponsible of the authors to not follow published rules when making NPC's. But thats just IMO.

PRPG has always done this, it didn't have rules on how you roll up a god, they were just given stats, which were calculated through mysterious means unknown.

No, they were invented specifically to be gods so from their inception they were made that way, they were never intended to be rolled up by GM's or players. Here we are discussing an NPC that violates previously written canon rules on how to make (roll up) that particular type of character. Huge difference.

So its fine as long as its one casting?

I suppose... not sure what I'm walking into here, feel like it's some kinda trap...

JK no trap, just making sure you had thought about where you draw the line.

a protection phrase can only protect against one thing or condition per phrase. However, more than one protection phrase can be placed on an object.

Key word here is object. The rule about 1 protection ward only applies to living beings. Objects can have stacked protections, living creatures can't.

Ok see while possibly true I don't think that was the author's intention. I believe (and it fits with the NPC) that they can have different wards of protection since they would not be cumulative, and if they were (like say protection from magic and Protection from Blind which both give a bonus to save vs magical blindness) then we simply don't stack any bonuses and instead go with just the highest granted by whichever ward is applicable.

Makes much more sense (to me) than trying to explain the multiple protection wards as one off spells (which the NPC is not stated to have).

explain the multiple protection wards that are active on the NPC without handwavium of one off spells.

There is no need for me to explain something that hasn't actually been proven, those magical abilities can come from sources other than protection wards.

Not without one off spells... which he does not have.

You already pointed out that the NPC has abilities with statistics not conforming to what we see in wards OR spells, meaning they must come from variant spells, so variant unprinted spells can be used to explain any stats that one might assume to be from stacked protection wards, since a spell could be designed to emulate a ward's effects.

You can assume all you want. I choose to think that they were made off of older canon information that I dont have access too (As arouette stated) OR that the creation process doesn't follow canon and was "fudged" by the author to be the exact character he envisioned (without him giving a moments thought to explain the fudging via unknown spells that have no basis to even be invented within canon at the time the NPC was made). But if that's what helps you make sense of NPCs that don't follow canon (as it was at the time the NPC was created) then you do that.

As an aside I will note that I believe it was the intention of the author to only have one ward phrase or one spell (possibly with a number of spell effects) be made permanent by the permanency ward. However I don't think that this NPC is in any way proof of this intention. In his write up it states clearly that the listed powers come from the wards and that "a number of them" have dragon bone (permanency wards) incorporated. NOT "all" of them or "each" of them but rather "a number of them" which in this context is a phrase used when "all" or "each" is not applicable and they don't want to say exactly how many.

Say there is a group of students and "a number of them are "A" students", from this context of the useage we automatically know that not all of, or each of, the students have earned an "A" but rather only "a number of" them have.

This means he has permanent abilities that are not made permanent from permanency wards and yet the section says that those abilities come from these "tattooed" wards.

This combined with the fact that he is either in violation of canon in that he has multiple protection wards (which I think is ok by canon) or that he has violated canon at the time by having unique and undisclosed spells or wards, means that he is not an accurate representation of how the rules are supposed to work.

IMO its a botched write up. If you are going to "roll up" an NPC for canon publication follow the ALREADY EXISTING canon rules... ALWAYS!

I don't want any homebrew GM fudged NPCs in canon because it causes issues (like this debate) which wouldn't happen (or at least not nearly as often) if the authors would just follow canon "to a T" when making NPCs instead of trying to make them uber cool. I will take the NPC and add/subtract what I want to fit my game anyhow, so I don't want a non canon base to start from because then I have to fix it first. Bottom line is if its in canon it damn well better follow existing canon up to that point.

Thinyser wrote:So instead of agreeing that multiple (different) wards of protection can be active at a time (on people as well as objects) you instead make up new unheard of spells to explain the NPC's abilities.

Yes, because PFRPG clearly states that multiple protection wards cannot be active on people.

There's nothing wrong with unheard-of spells, PRPG was built for them.

Thinyser wrote:the NPC in question does not know any variant spells only standard ones.

He may not have cast them, they could have come from another wizard or a scroll.

Thinyser wrote:we can fill in gaps but thats house rules and not canon.

The NPC's stats ARE canon though, and unprinted spells which impart such abilities are the best explanation for the source of those powers.

Thinyser wrote:since there is no common set of "unwritten rules" they are not up for debate when discussing canon items.

They most certainly ARE up for debate. We know an NPC has magical powers made permanent via runes, presenting the hypothesis of a variant spell giving such abilities is a fine explanation to propose for the source of those strange stats. Feel free to suggest alternative theories, of course.

Thinyser wrote:Except this NPC doesn't have any one of a kind magic spells that he could make permanent with a ward.

He doesn't need to. Does it say that these came from spells he cast?

Thinyser wrote:there could just as easily be undiscovered wards that bypass all supposed protection ward limits allowing the NPC to stack as many as he wants

I suppose, but that is a less likely explanation than spells, since it doesn't require creating magic that bypasses rules.

Thinyser wrote:since it doesn't list those I'm inclined to say that is not the case.

So what do you propose the abilities come from? Has to be something.

Thinyser wrote:they were invented specifically to be gods so from their inception they were made that way, they were never intended to be rolled up by GM's or players.

Irrelevant, intention of being rolled randomly is meta-gaming data that is not applicable to in-Megaverse explanations.

Thinyser wrote:Here we are discussing an NPC that violates previously written canon rules on how to make (roll up) that particular type of character. Huge difference.

The NPC does not violate any rules, he simply has enchantments placed upon him that we lack the stats for, much like we don't know the cost of Dunscon's immortality ritual or how much PPE it took to put the old ones to sleep.

Thinyser wrote:just making sure you had thought about where you draw the line.

Basically the line's whatever could be considered as a collective effect, which I figure a single spell could. Dunno if it's possible to group beyond that.

Probably the biggest case of abuse is 4D Transformation from Rifts England since it gives several spell effects.

Thinyser wrote:I don't think that was the author's intention.

I don't think the protection ward on living beings limit existed originally in PRPG, and since the NPC is from a 1st-edition book, your idea on multiple protection wards is workable there.

My whole 'it oughtta be a spell' approach is partly a retroactive application of a PFRPG2 policy to a PRPG1 sourcebook. The other part is because you mentioned the stats not falling in line with wards either, in which case, there's more information printed about making new spells than making new wards. I guess both is possible though. Abdul-Ra is making a 'summon god' circle (something I think someone said the Old Ones may have had) to save his Rhada, so if that can be made, surely variant wards could too.

I believe it was definitely' the author's intention to apply that limit since it was explicitly added to prevent stacking protection wards, which probably got abused heavily in the original edition.

I believe (and it fits with the NPC) that they can have different wards of protection since they would not be cumulative, and if they were (like say protection from magic and Protection from Blind which both give a bonus to save vs magical blindness) then we simply don't stack any bonuses and instead go with just the highest granted by whichever ward is applicable.

Thinyser wrote:one off spells (which the NPC is not stated to have).
one off spells... which he does not have.

He doesn't need them. Just like a wizard could cast Impervious to Fire on a Juicer and have a Diabolist buddy make that permanent with the Juicer lacking magical knowledge altogether.

Thinyser wrote:I choose to think that they were made off of older canon information that I dont have access too (As arouette stated)

I have PRPG, and compared the effects of protection wards to his abilities.

Protection wards explain the energy/fire/cold and sleep/charm/fear/mood-altering resistances, but as pointed out the read/write and RecognizeEnchantment percentages seem a bit off so 'it's a spell' is a band-aid for it. Just as I would band-aid "it's a spell" if we have to explain his abilities under PF2nd rules which forbid protection-stacking.

Thinyser wrote:OR that the creation process doesn't follow canon and was "fudged" by the author to be the exact character he envisioned (without him giving a moments thought to explain the fudging via unknown spells that have no basis to even be invented within canon at the time the NPC was made)

That's a meta-gaming explanation, it's certainly an appropriate assumption to make about many NPCs and I agree with you about it, but it doesn't qualify as an in-universe justification via natural laws, since Kevin Siembieda is not explicitly an in-Megaverse deity who creates things (although some graffiti would imply otherwise, and his spouse did write a novel owned by a Creator Magus from Dweomer)

Thinyser wrote:if that's what helps you make sense of NPCs that don't follow canon (as it was at the time the NPC was created) then you do that.

Gotta do something to explain it, variant spells are the shortest leap, Occam's Razor.

Thinyser wrote:I believe it was the intention of the author to only have one ward phrase or one spell (possibly with a number of spell effects) be made permanent by the permanency ward. However I don't think that this NPC is in any way proof of this intention.

It's not absolute proof, I agree with you on that, your explanation of successively attained spells certainly is a valid counter-argument to the proposal, one I hadn't thought of.

Although the successively-attained-spells argument meshes perfectly with the "got these from scrolls" argument I'm using to explain how he could have spells cast on him which he can't cast.

Thinyser wrote:In his write up it states clearly that the listed powers come from the wards and that "a number of them" have dragon bone (permanency wards) incorporated. NOT "all" of them or "each" of them but rather "a number of them" which in this context is a phrase used when "all" or "each" is not applicable and they don't want to say exactly how many.

This could imply that there are non-permanency wards among them, true. Indeed I think it's a valid assumption that there is at least 1 protection ward among them (possibly more, since it was written prior to the limit being introduced).

Although it's worth pointing out that bone besides dragon (like demon or devil or god) can also create permanency.

Thinyser wrote:This combined with the fact that he is either in violation of canon in that he has multiple protection wards (which I think is ok by canon)

It was okay by PRPG's canon so far as I can tell, unless I'm missing the '1 protection per person' limit appearing prior to PF2.

I suppose we could theorize that only 2nd edition (PPE-user) Diabolists have the limit of 1 protection ward per person and that Diabolists taught in the 1st Edition dimension have no such limit.

Thinyser wrote:or that he has violated canon at the time by having unique and undisclosed spells or wards, means that he is not an accurate representation of how the rules are supposed to work.

Having unique/undisclosed magic effects on you does not violate canon. The NPC stats are part of canon so these are explanations for the parts the NPC is a sum of.

Thinyser wrote:IMO its a botched write up. If you are going to "roll up" an NPC for canon publication follow the ALREADY EXISTING canon rules... ALWAYS!

Tell that to the deities.

Even with alien intelligences or godlings (which we do have random roll tables for) many of the NPCs do not follow the rules.

Although I do detest Skippy, Mark Sumimoto.

Thinyser wrote:the NPC in question does not know any variant spells only standard ones.

He may not have cast them, they could have come from another wizard or a scroll.

Now you're thinking logically. Just because he has them doesn't mean that there is only one explanation for how he got them. Just like simply having multiple permanency wards does not indicate that they each have only one spell associated with them.

Thinyser wrote:we can fill in gaps but thats house rules and not canon.

The NPC's stats ARE canon though, and unprinted spells which impart such abilities are the best explanation for the source of those powers.

No the best explination is that he was canon according to PF1 rules and the rules changed so he is now not canon.

Thinyser wrote:since there is no common set of "unwritten rules" they are not up for debate when discussing canon items.

They most certainly ARE up for debate. We know an NPC has magical powers made permanent via runes, presenting the hypothesis of a variant spell giving such abilities is a fine explanation to propose for the source of those strange stats. Feel free to suggest alternative theories, of course.

The most likely alternative is that he was canon and the rules changed with PFRPG2.

Thinyser wrote:Except this NPC doesn't have any one of a kind magic spells that he could make permanent with a ward.

He doesn't need to. Does it say that these came from spells he cast?

Nope and again now you see why your argument about the multiple permanency wards being evidence of a 1:1 requirement of perm wards to spells is not logically sound. This was actually the trap I laid to make you see that when evidence has more than one potential cause its not really proof of anything.

Thinyser wrote:there could just as easily be undiscovered wards that bypass all supposed protection ward limits allowing the NPC to stack as many as he wants

I suppose, but that is a less likely explanation than spells, since it doesn't require creating magic that bypasses rules.

Bypassing rules is as you would say meta gaming. Nothing in the rules says that all wards are known and none can be rediscovered/invented that could potentially invalidate some existing rules. And nobody "in the game" would know if there were rules against this or not.

Thinyser wrote:since it doesn't list those I'm inclined to say that is not the case.

So what do you propose the abilities come from? Has to be something.

Most likely the ward rules as depicted in PF1 which was canon at the time.

Thinyser wrote:they were invented specifically to be gods so from their inception they were made that way, they were never intended to be rolled up by GM's or players.

Irrelevant, intention of being rolled randomly is meta-gaming data that is not applicable to in-Megaverse explanations.

You were the one that brought up stats of gods. They were created by the authors not as an archetype (like OCCs and RCCs) but as unique beings to be used as plot devices not as player characters (or even in most cases NPCs). There is no method listed because they are each one of a kind . If they wanted to they could have said "this is how you make new gods" and listed rules, but they didn't, so they don't have any rules they themselves had to follow. It allows creative freedom but also maintains canon since the gods are introduced as is.

Thinyser wrote:Here we are discussing an NPC that violates previously written canon rules on how to make (roll up) that particular type of character. Huge difference.

The NPC does not violate any rules, he simply has enchantments placed upon him that we lack the stats for, much like we don't know the cost of Dunscon's immortality ritual or how much PPE it took to put the old ones to sleep.

The old ones are plot devices not NPCs. Dunscon's immortality ritual should have been detailed just like any other ritual or spell, otherwise its simply an author making an NPC the way they want them to be w/o following canon that was previously published and details how that archetype is created. Just like we all follow it when making our own NPC's.

Thinyser wrote:I don't think that was the author's intention.

I don't think the protection ward on living beings limit existed originally in PRPG, and since the NPC is from a 1st-edition book, your idea on multiple protection wards is workable there.

My whole 'it oughtta be a spell' approach is partly a retroactive application of a PFRPG2 policy to a PRPG1 sourcebook. The other part is because you mentioned the stats not falling in line with wards either, in which case, there's more information printed about making new spells than making new wards. I guess both is possible though. Abdul-Ra is making a 'summon god' circle (something I think someone said the Old Ones may have had) to save his Rhada, so if that can be made, surely variant wards could too.

I believe it was definitely' the author's intention to apply that limit since it was explicitly added to prevent stacking protection wards, which probably got abused heavily in the original edition.

Or they didn't want people stacking the same ward for the "cumulative effects" as they state. Separate ward phrases with different protection from <condition> arn't for the most part cumulative and if they are use the most applicable one.

Thinyser wrote:one off spells (which the NPC is not stated to have).
one off spells... which he does not have.

He doesn't need them. Just like a wizard could cast Impervious to Fire on a Juicer and have a Diabolist buddy make that permanent with the Juicer lacking magical knowledge altogether.

Yep and he doesn't logically have to have multiple permanence wards because he has multiple spell abilities that have been made permanent.

Thinyser wrote:I choose to think that they were made off of older canon information that I dont have access too (As arouette stated)

I have PRPG, and compared the effects of protection wards to his abilities.

Protection wards explain the energy/fire/cold and sleep/charm/fear/mood-altering resistances, but as pointed out the read/write and RecognizeEnchantment percentages seem a bit off so 'it's a spell' is a band-aid for it. Just as I would band-aid "it's a spell" if we have to explain his abilities under PF2nd rules which forbid protection-stacking.

It could also be a combination of his OCC abilities and they lumped it in with the Ward bonuses by accident. 2 of his 3 OCCs have the ability to recognize enchantments and the eyes of thoth spell might have been different or was a typo (the 8&9 are always right next to each other on the keyboard)

Thinyser wrote:OR that the creation process doesn't follow canon and was "fudged" by the author to be the exact character he envisioned (without him giving a moments thought to explain the fudging via unknown spells that have no basis to even be invented within canon at the time the NPC was made)

That's a meta-gaming explanation, it's certainly an appropriate assumption to make about many NPCs and I agree with you about it, but it doesn't qualify as an in-universe justification via natural laws, since Kevin Siembieda is not explicitly an in-Megaverse deity who creates things (although some graffiti would imply otherwise, and his spouse did write a novel owned by a Creator Magus from Dweomer)

looking for In-game justifications for author mistakes is a wild goose chase. You are trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. You can if you like but its not something that I care to endeavor in.

Thinyser wrote:if that's what helps you make sense of NPCs that don't follow canon (as it was at the time the NPC was created) then you do that.

Gotta do something to explain it, variant spells are the shortest leap, Occam's Razor.

Or simply realize it was based off the old rules. Seems like the simplest way, much more so than trying to explain it with "in game reasons".

Thinyser wrote:I believe it was the intention of the author to only have one ward phrase or one spell (possibly with a number of spell effects) be made permanent by the permanency ward. However I don't think that this NPC is in any way proof of this intention.

It's not absolute proof, I agree with you on that, your explanation of successively attained spells certainly is a valid counter-argument to the proposal, one I hadn't thought of.

Yep.

Although the successively-attained-spells argument meshes perfectly with the "got these from scrolls" argument I'm using to explain how he could have spells cast on him which he can't cast.

Certainly a valid alternative to casting it himself.

Thinyser wrote:In his write up it states clearly that the listed powers come from the wards and that "a number of them" have dragon bone (permanency wards) incorporated. NOT "all" of them or "each" of them but rather "a number of them" which in this context is a phrase used when "all" or "each" is not applicable and they don't want to say exactly how many.

This could imply that there are non-permanency wards among them, true. Indeed I think it's a valid assumption that there is at least 1 protection ward among them (possibly more, since it was written prior to the limit being introduced).

Although it's worth pointing out that bone besides dragon (like demon or devil or god) can also create permanency.

True but not really relevant as they probably would have mentioned that he had those too. Also did the rules from PF1 include these alternate bone options or only dragons? I'm guessing it was only dragons.

Thinyser wrote:This combined with the fact that he is either in violation of canon in that he has multiple protection wards (which I think is ok by canon)

It was okay by PRPG's canon so far as I can tell, unless I'm missing the '1 protection per person' limit appearing prior to PF2.

I suppose we could theorize that only 2nd edition (PPE-user) Diabolists have the limit of 1 protection ward per person and that Diabolists taught in the 1st Edition dimension have no such limit.

Or you can stop looking for in game solutions for problems that arise because of changes made to the setting by the authors.

Thinyser wrote:or that he has violated canon at the time by having unique and undisclosed spells or wards, means that he is not an accurate representation of how the rules are supposed to work.

Having unique/undisclosed magic effects on you does not violate canon. The NPC stats are part of canon so these are explanations for the parts the NPC is a sum of.

I disagree that NPCs make canon when they obviously don't follow the previously laid out rules. Nor do they remain canon once the rules have changed (as is the case of your example) despite finding "in game ways" to justify their no longer canon powers or abilities.

Thinyser wrote:IMO its a botched write up. If you are going to "roll up" an NPC for canon publication follow the ALREADY EXISTING canon rules... ALWAYS!

Tell that to the deities.

Even with alien intelligences or godlings (which we do have random roll tables for) many of the NPCs do not follow the rules.

Yeah I don't like anything that is supposedly from canon that violates the rules for creating those types of beings be they OCC, RCC, or strictly NPC.

Although I do detest Skippy, Mark Sumimoto.

Not familiar with the reference.

I don't know if it will help or hurt the argument (I'm not even sure who is on what side anymore), but I rechecked my book. Diabolists were nerfed big time, there was no such 1 per living being restriction in 1ed.

arouetta wrote:I don't know if it will help or hurt the argument (I'm not even sure who is on what side anymore), but I rechecked my book. Diabolists were nerfed big time, there was no such 1 per living being restriction in 1ed.

I figured as much.

Thinyser wrote:Now you're thinking logically. Just because he has them doesn't mean that there is only one explanation for how he got them. Just like simply having multiple permanency wards does not indicate that they each have only one spell associated with them.

I've always thought logically.

I still think his multiple permanence wards do indicate and suggest 1 ward per permanent effect. They don't absolutely guarantee it, but they do indicate it. Someone who intended to have many permanent magical effects probably would have held off getting them until he could get them all via 1 ward. Saves a lot of pain and expense.

Thinyser wrote:the best explination is that he was canon according to PF1 rules and the rules changed so he is now not canon.

He will always be canon. Just to be canon via PF2 diabolism rules we must ditch the most likely PF1 explanation (stacked protection wards) and adopt the most likely PF2 explanation (stacked protection spells emulating ward effects)

Thinyser wrote:The most likely alternative is that he was canon and the rules changed with PFRPG2.

I'm all for treating PRPG and PF2nd as separate dimensions, but within the context of the approach some favor (PF2 replacing PRPG) and all world books applying to PF2nd (even ones with only 1st ed versions) we have to intepret the NPC differently.

Thinyser wrote:now you see why your argument about the multiple permanency wards being evidence of a 1:1 requirement of perm wards to spells is not logically sound.

I did initially say "this should clarify that it's 1 perm ward per magical effect" but dropped that after you provided an alternate explanation. Not sure why you're still arguing against that.

2) The spells that they wanted to make permanent were not all available at the same time.

Still no indication you can apply 1 perm ward to multiple non-ward effects.

See? I should've been clearer by saying "acceptable alternate explanation". I was merely pointing out that negating the 'this proves you need many perms' argument still doesn't support a '1 perm unlimited spells' kind of view.

Thinyser wrote:This was actually the trap I laid to make you see that when evidence has more than one potential cause its not really proof of anything.

Right... except it was entirely unnecessary since your number 2 explanation was one I found acceptable when you first introduced it. I retracted the multi-bones as being absolute proof, I now only view them as strong indicators.

Thinyser wrote:Bypassing rules is as you would say meta gaming.

Bypassing rules is cheating or house-ruling. Meta-gaming is when a player introduces knowledge they have but their character would not have. For example, someone who has never encountered vampires knowing not to bother trying to hurt them with normal weapons even though they don't have the lore to know of the invulnerability.

Thinyser wrote:Nothing in the rules says that all wards are known and none can be rediscovered/invented that could potentially invalidate some existing rules.

Correct, the possibility exists of PF2 protection wards that are stackable on living beings, I just consider it less likely than spells that emulate wards, since spells are already stackable.

More information exists indicating the possibility of spell-modification than exists indicating ward-modification.

Thinyser wrote:And nobody "in the game" would know if there were rules against this or not.

We're discussing whether or not a character can do something, not whether or not they would try it.

Thinyser wrote:You were the one that brought up stats of gods. They were created by the authors not as an archetype (like OCCs and RCCs) but as unique beings to be used as plot devices not as player characters (or even in most cases NPCs). There is no method listed because they are each one of a kind.

Yet hypothetically, even if we aren't given the die rolls for everything, a unifying means of random generation should exist for everything of a shared type.

If not gods, will still point out that random tables exist for AIs yet AIs don't conform to them. We also have a Godling who somehow knows Phase Powers without being a Phase Mystic.

Thinyser wrote:old ones are plot devices not NPCs.

You can be both. All NPCs are plot devices. The Old Ones ARE characters. They're just sleeping ones.

Thinyser wrote:Dunscon's immortality ritual should have been detailed just like any other ritual or spell, otherwise its simply an author making an NPC the way they want them to be w/o following canon that was previously published and details how that archetype is created. Just like we all follow it when making our own NPC's.

Not detailing a spell or ritual doesn't mean that it's an NPC being created randomly without following canon. The NPC establishes a new canon potential. Just a canon we don't know the mechanics of (like gods) so we can't duplicate on other characters without fudging the stats.

Some indications do exist, of course. Like being told his former HP/SDC, it's clear though not explicitly stated that you add them and then halve the sum to get MDC.

Thinyser wrote:Or they didn't want people stacking the same ward for the "cumulative effects" as they state.

Separate ward phrases with different protection from <condition> arn't for the most part cumulative and if they are use the most applicable one.

If you have protection from fire and protection from cold in 2 phrases, activating them both at once would still result in simultaneous protection in PRPG, but not in PF2nd since there is no a rule preventing it.

Thinyser wrote:he doesn't logically have to have multiple permanence wards because he has multiple spell abilities that have been made permanent.

I'm not following you here. There's no proof 2 spells (let's say, nightvision and mute, just to simplify things) can be made permanent with a single ward.

You do need a ward to make a spell permanent, unless you want to modify the duration inherent to the spell, which makes it cost an incredibly high amount of PPE, and also reduces the chances of creating the variant due to the higher level.

Thinyser wrote:It could also be a combination of his OCC abilities and they lumped it in with the Ward bonuses by accident. 2 of his 3 OCCs have the ability to recognize enchantments and the eyes of thoth spell might have been different or was a typo (the 8&9 are always right next to each other on the keyboard)

Good points, agree on the likelihood there (isn't the first time things have been misplaced in the wrong section) just operating discussion on reading literally that it's from wards though.

Thinyser wrote:looking for In-game justifications for author mistakes is a wild goose chase. You can if you like but its not something that I care to endeavor in.

Gander Pursuit (Ninjas and Superspies page 317) is a physical skill that adds +4 to PP and +2d3+5 to Spd, so it is well worth the effort, even though it costs 2 skill selections if chosen as secondary, and has Running and Wrestling as prerequisites, limiting its selection to those OCCs capable of selecting those skills (the latter being the most restricted).

Thinyser wrote:simply realize it was based off the old rules. Seems like the simplest way, much more so than trying to explain it with "in game reasons".

You say 'realize' as if I don't. I do realize the cause here. One can do that and still strive to concoct how to explain an NPC in 2nd Ed terms while modifying them minimally. It's a welcome challenge.

Anyone not up to it can simply take the "separate dimensions" approach to

Thinyser wrote:

bone besides dragon (like demon or devil or god) can also create permanency.

True but not really relevant as they probably would have mentioned that he had those too.

I dunno, that could be a dark secret he doesn't want to relate.

Thinyser wrote:did the rules from PF1 include these alternate bone options or only dragons? I'm guessing it was only dragons.

Nope, the god/demon/devil alternative has always existed. The only change in PF2 in this regard is dEEvil (lame) and there being a PPE cost.

Thinyser wrote:you can stop looking for in game solutions for problems that arise because of changes made to the setting by the authors.

Obviously, but that avoids a fun challenge and exercise.

Thinyser wrote:I disagree that NPCs make canon when they obviously don't follow the previously laid out rules.

NPCs exist, they are part of canon, there must be laws of nature in the Megaverse that all things follow, so if NPCs don't follow printed rules, they follow unprinted rules. Perhaps rules the game authors never bothered to make up. Even random imaginings can be quantified though.

Thinyser wrote:Nor do they remain canon once the rules have changed (as is the case of your example) despite finding "in game ways" to justify their no longer canon powers or abilities.

Since we do not explicitly know the exact source of his powers (even though they clearly correspond to protection wards stacked) the 'stacked ward-mimicking variant spells' explanation allows us to retain his powers in a PF2 setting.

Thinyser wrote:Not familiar with the reference.

He's a shifter NPC in Splynn Dimensional Market who had far too much PPE, well beyond the sum of the maximum they can roll for their personal pool and the bonus gained from a pact.

If a Shifter is going to get that much PPE they shuold have to at least make pacts with dozens of creatures and play them off against each other at high risk.

Might be manageable with Greater Elemental masters though, they don't seem the kind to catch on.

Diabolists were nerfed big time

In terms of stacking protection wards, yeah, but on the plus side, if they can pay the meager PPE requirements, the limit of how many wards they can activate per day was greatly increased.

Tor wrote:If we look at the NPC example (forget which PF world book) they have MULTIPLE bones embedded in their chest to power several spells.

Even if the Diabolist OCC were lacking in detail, this should clarify that it's 1 perm ward per magical effect, not 1 for all.

That could be for a couple of of reasons
1) They didn't have a bone chip big enough to inscribe the entire rune phrase they wanted so had to use smaller rune phrases to achieve similar ends.
2) The spells that they wanted to make permanent were not all available at the same time.
3) Artist conceptions are not canon and are almost as often as not in contradiction to RAW.

EDIT: I just looked through all the PFRPG books I own (I think I have most if not all of them) and couldnt find any such artwork that shows bone chips sewn onto the chest. I also looked in rifts BoM no luck there either.
[/quote]

Archy has some sewn into his chest. I could swear there is a picture in Ilse/Island at teh edge of the WOrld.

If there was a pic I don't remember if we could see the bone, I only remember a written description. That bit about not all spells available at the time is good though, plus I think someone pointed out that his stats reflect just having permanent diabolist protection wards by what stats they had in 1st ed PRPG.