Shadow spells and replicating/inhereting descriptors from mimicked spells.

[Florian]

This started in the the general Pathfinder Q/A thread.


I don't see any language referring to duplicating restrictions that's different in SEn vs SC/SEv. It just has the same 20% reality clause.

I'd say let's start a separate thread to discuss this further.

Ok, let´s do that.

Observation on how descriptor work on spells:
A descriptor is either context-generated and/or context-inducing.

Context-generated means that the stuff described in the spell description generates the descriptor.
Context-inducing means that some aspect of the rules generates the descriptor, no matter if the context of the spell description would generate it.

Examples:
A Fireball spell deals fire damage, therefore gains the (Fire) descriptor. Everything else that is context-sensitive can work based on this, like an Elemental Focus (Fire) feat.

A Summon Monster spell has an open alignment descriptor, especially asking for the alignment of the summoned critter to fill in the blanks (or not, in case of neutrals).

Now, all Shadow spells are of the Illusion school and come with the shadow descriptor attached. This completely replaces the starting entry of the spell to be mimicked, including previous descriptors.

Fireball now deals a quasi-real illusion of fire, therefore not generating the (Fire) descriptor and not interacting with Elemental Focus (Fire) anymore.

Summon Monster doesn´t summon anything, but creates an Illusion of something, ceasing to be affected bei Augment Summoning but also ceasing to have the (Alignment) descriptor. The illusion of a Bearded Devil now has ceased to be a (Evil) and (Lawfull) summoning and is also not blocked by a Magic Circle Against Evil anymore (possibly leading to a Disbelieve save).

[Slithery D]

Disagree with all of the above, shadow spells are quasi-real so they inherit all descriptors. If you're 20% fire and 80% shadow, you have both descriptors. A shadow outsider has some of its real essence (leaving aside that summons aren't necessarily "real" or independent creatures to begin with), so it retains the alignment descriptors.

This is also necessary to maintain game balance.

[Florian]

Disagree with all of the above, shadow spells are quasi-real so they inherit all descriptors. If you're 20% fire and 80% shadow, you have both descriptors. A shadow outsider has some of its real essence (leaving aside that summons aren't necessarily "real" or independent creatures to begin with), so it retains the alignment descriptors.

This is also necessary to maintain game balance.

Let me challenge your position:
The quasi-real nature, especially the percentage behind it, has nothing to do with the spell itself, therefore not affecting any descriptors. This only concerns what happens when a Disbelieve check is called for and successes at.
The quasi-real nature means that interaction with the spell is based on the spell that is mimicked to a certain degree. So a spell dealing Fire damage will still do so, instead of unnamed or shadow damage, a copy of an evil outside could still allow the Paladin to Smite Evil and all that.

That was never in question. That rather was whether the Shadow-spell itself has to deal with the descriptors.

What you state doesn´t mesh with the rules. If nothing changes, a Shadow Fireball would profit from Spell Focus (Evocation) and/or Elemental Focus (Fire). It doesn´t.

[Psyren]

What you state doesn´t mesh with the rules. If nothing changes, a Shadow Fireball would profit from Spell Focus (Evocation) and/or Elemental Focus (Fire). It doesn´t.

Where does it say it doesn't? Where are the specific rules to adjudicate duplicating a spell?

[Florian]

Where does it say it doesn't? Where are the specific rules to adjudicate duplicating a spell?

You do not duplicate, you mimic. Vast difference.

Once you use a Shadow-type spell, you use the rules for Illusions. Illusions don´t call out that they generate descriptors based on context.

Edit: I do not see where any kind of inheritance, transfer or transformation should happen. You cast Shadow Evocation and choose a spell as a template for it, nothing more. You still cast Shadow Evocation, not, say, Shadow Fireball.

[Deophaun]

I think you have the right of it.

The body text of the spell is ambiguous. However, the table entry is not.

Range: See text
Effect: See text
Duration: See text

Does it say "See text" for the descriptor?

Illusion (Shadow)

Well, there we go. Without anything more specific, it doesn't gain descriptors from the spells it mimics.

[Psyren]

You do not duplicate, you mimic. Vast difference.

The term it uses is "quasi-real, illusory version." There's no denying that it's an illusion, but it is still a version of the spell. The descriptors a spell has are part of that spell - they are a property of it, just like its range or duration, so a version of that spell would have those unless specifically stated otherwise.

For further context, I'll quote the reply I gave that started this discussion, with emphasis added.


A552: It could go either way and depends on how your GM defines "quasi-real, illusory version." As there is no in-game definition for these terms, it will require some adjudication. Personally, I'd say that anything that duplicates a spell duplicates everything about it, including descriptors. Ruling otherwise has weird consequences, like the Shadow Enchantment of a charm spell being able to affect mindless undead.

Replace "duplicates" with "mimics" if you want, sure, but that doesn't change my answer. Unless it specifically says "without that descriptor," then it gets it, and is subject to any attendant rules.

To add to this, all three shadow spells say "normal effects" or "work as normal" - something those spells simply cannot do without inheriting the descriptor or even just the effects of the descriptor. The normal effect of a Charm Person spell is that it is suppressed against someone with Protection from X up, something that doesn't happen without the [Charm] descriptor. The normal effect of a summoned creature is that they can't touch someone with protection from evil up, something that doesn't happen without the [Summoning] descriptor. These spells cannot have their normal effects without the descriptor even if the target fails to disbelieve, and therefore the RAW is violated.

[Florian]

@Psyren:

Ok, I see where I did´t make my thoughts clear. Deophaun partly got what my exact intention was.

I think there is a disconnect between the caster, the spell of origin, let´s say Shadow Evocation and the spell that is mimicked through it, let´s say Fireball.

You, the caster, deal with the spell of origin and that does not translate any of the relevant descriptors over to you (The missing "See Text" Deophaun pointed out), staying Illusion (Shadow).
What you don´t deal with directly is the mimicked spell. That only inherits rules elements you pass down to it, like generating the DC or CL but doesn´t "inherent upwards" anything of its own.

The mimicked Fireball deals fire damage, therefore having the (Fire) descriptor, that was never in question, but reading the table entry tells me that the spell of origin, Shadow Evocation, will lack said (Fire) descriptor as it is not "inherited upwards".

That will mean that any context-sensitive passive options that are triggered by using a spell with the (Fire) descriptor are not triggered by mimicking one using Shadow Evocation, as the one spell creates the other spell and the caster is not directly involved. A Elemental Focus (Fire) would not be triggered by the casting of Shadow Evocation.

Edit: Duplicate vs. Mimic. A duplicate would work exactly the same as the original and follow all the same rules. This does not apply in this case as the Shadow spells themselves alter how the mimicked spell works in quite interesting ways.

[MisterKaws]

The term it uses is "quasi-real, illusory version." There's no denying that it's an illusion, but it is still a version of the spell. The descriptors a spell has are part of that spell - they are a property of it, just like its range or duration, so a version of that spell would have those unless specifically stated otherwise.

For further context, I'll quote the reply I gave that started this discussion, with emphasis added.



Replace "duplicates" with "mimics" if you want, sure, but that doesn't change my answer. Unless it specifically says "without that descriptor," then it gets it, and is subject to any attendant rules.

To add to this, all three shadow spells say "normal effects" or "work as normal" - something those spells simply cannot do without inheriting the descriptor or even just the effects of the descriptor. The normal effect of a Charm Person spell is that it is suppressed against someone with Protection from X up, something that doesn't happen without the [Charm] descriptor. The normal effect of a summoned creature is that they can't touch someone with protection from evil up, something that doesn't happen without the [Summoning] descriptor. These spells cannot have their normal effects without the descriptor even if the target fails to disbelieve, and therefore the RAW is violated.

That's why Shadow Enchantment was a dumb idea. 3.5 only has shadow spells that mimic matter and energy, not any that mimics mind-affecting effects, because this kind of stuff happens when you have that.

For Shadow Enchantment, I'd houserule that it gets the descriptors for Charm, Compulsion and Mind-affecting, but for the rest, not happening.

[Psyren]

@Psyren:

Ok, I see where I did´t make my thoughts clear. Deophaun partly got what my exact intention was.

I'm afraid I can't see what he wrote as he's on my ignore list, but if you quote the part you're referencing I'll be able to read it in yours.



Edit: Duplicate vs. Mimic. A duplicate would work exactly the same as the original and follow all the same rules. This does not apply in this case as the Shadow spells themselves alter how the mimicked spell works in quite interesting ways.

It has exactly two alterations - being subject to SR even if the mimicked spell is not, and a will disbelief that changes the % effectiveness of the spell if the target succeeds. If the save fails, the fact that the spell has "normal effects" means that it must inherit the descriptors or descriptor effects of said spell. If it didn't, it would not function "normally," because some of those functions or effects come from the descriptor.

All three of them say it:


Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless an affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur.
...
Non-damaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.


Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless the affected creature succeeds on a Will save.
...
If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur.
...
Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them.
...
A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it's recognized as shadowy). It deals normal damage and has all normal abilities and weaknesses.



Spells that deal damage or have other effects work as normal unless the affected creature succeeds at a Will save.
...
If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur.

For example, the effect of a summoning spell is a creature with several weaknesses specific to summoned creatures; it can be dismissed, dispelled, banished, can't touch warded characters etc. All of these are "normal weaknesses" of summoned creatures. It also cannot be summoned inside of another creature or summoned in mid-air. You can't Shadow Conjuration an elephant up in the sky so that it falls down and flattens the city guard, nor can you Shadow Create Water into someone's lungs to drown them, because the spells being mimicked have those restrictions too. The Shadow spells do not let you break these rules; they inherit the descriptors of the spells you're mimicking.

TL;DR - Descriptors of spells are additional rules text that governs how spells function. For a spell to have "normal effects," all of that spell's rules must apply, both the ones in the spell entry itself, and the ones referenced by the descriptor but written down elsewhere. If they don't, then the spell cannot have "normal effects."

[Florian]

I think that you have a misconception about the "as normal" thing.
A spell consists of two components: The formal spell header (table) and the descriptive text. Yes, normally text trumps table, but in this case the table is explicit in superseding the text, by necessary function of the spell.

Looking at the spell Shadow Conjuration:

SHADOW CONJURATION
School illusion (shadow); Level bard 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range see text
Effect see text
Duration see text
Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with); varies; see text; Spell Resistance yes; see text

Note that there´re some instances of "see text" in specific places, lacking in others. The most important part here is the missing "see text" following the School entry, indicating no change whatsoever happens to this, as we deal with an illusion here.
Another important indicator that the spells behave drastically different from "normal" is the final clause that objects will automatically Disbelieve the illusion.

A mimicked spell would act as a template and follow their "normal" rules as long as those have not been superseded by the specific rules of Shadow Conjuration.

Concerning mimicking Summon Monsters, that means that it drops the alignment descriptor (note that the creature itself keeps it, being context generated), is not Conjuration (Summoning), does not create a summoned creature but rather an illusion, so ignores anything that especially works context-based with the Conjuration (Summoning) sub-school and rules and exchanges that for anything that works context-based with illusions.

Other things will always stay unchanged. Once a, say, energy type of any kind is called out in the descriptive text, that type is used since there is no "shadow" damage type of its own.

[Psyren]

Concerning mimicking Summon Monsters, that means that it drops the alignment descriptor (note that the creature itself keeps it, being context generated), is not Conjuration (Summoning), does not create a summoned creature but rather an illusion, so ignores anything that especially works context-based with the Conjuration (Summoning) sub-school and rules and exchanges that for anything that works context-based with illusions.

Which means that shadow summons cannot be dismissed, can be summoned in mid-air, need to be brought to -CON hit points before dying (and won't disappear even then), and other things that depend on the descriptor. Respectfully, that makes no sense to me and never will, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation here.

[Florian]

Which means that shadow summons cannot be dismissed, can be summoned in mid-air, need to be brought to -CON hit points before dying (and won't disappear even then), and other things that depend on the descriptor. Respectfully, that makes no sense to me and never will, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation here.

Looking at other problematic spells and issues when using the Shadow family of spells will see a staggering amount of problematic issues cropping up. It´s not just the way summoning is handled.

What is the quasi-real nature of a Mage Armor spell and what does the percentage reality mean? It gets even weirder with Contingency, after all.

While I do agree with you how RAI handling should be, the RAW handling doesn´t cover that.

It will get even weirder once you manage to ramp up the percentile chance to 100% even when a successful Disbelieve check has been made.
And that is a thing here: The things you mentioned, all deviations from the basic Conjuration (Summoning) rules, would force an immediate Disbelieve check for everyone witnessing it, revealing the nature of the illusion.

[Psyren]

While I do agree with you how RAI handling should be, the RAW handling doesn´t cover that.

To reiterate, it's a matter of interpretation. Without RAW definitions for terms like "quasi-real version" or "normal effects," two reasonable GMs can come to different conclusions on what they should mean without either being definitively wrong by RAW. That's probably where we will have to leave it as far as the descriptor topic goes.



What is the quasi-real nature of a Mage Armor spell and what does the percentage reality mean?

If your attacker interacts with it (e.g. by attacking you) and fails to disbelieve it, it works exactly like normal mage armor.

However if they disbelieve it, then x% of the time it is able to stop their attacks and you would get to use your higher AC value, while the rest of the time it doesn't interfere and your AC is calculated as though you didn't have it up at all. That percentage would get rolled every time the disbelieving creature attacked you.

[Florian]

To reiterate, it's a matter of interpretation. Without RAW definitions for terms like "quasi-real version" or "normal effects," two reasonable GMs can come to different conclusions on what they should mean without either being definitively wrong by RAW. That's probably where we will have to leave it as far as the descriptor topic goes.

My personal goal on this is to plumb the depths of possibilities (and failures) on this specific topic. I don´t want to (or need to) be "right", I just want to see the whole extend of potential pitfalls as well as solutions.

That´s why I deem it to be important to discover what range of interpretations on this matter can show up and if a common consensus could be formed based on that.

P.S. I think your Inbox is full.

[Antariuk]

Although I agree with Psyren, I think Florian has a point. Is there an up-to-date guide to shadow spells and illusions in Pathfinder, especially with the options available in Occult Adventures and Ultimate Intrigue? I'd really love to see someone capable tackle this topic ;)

[Florian]

Although I agree with Psyren, I think Florian has a point. Is there an up-to-date guide to shadow spells and illusions in Pathfinder, especially with the options available in Occult Adventures and Ultimate Intrigue? I'd really love to see someone capable tackle this topic ;)

*Laugh*

I´ve started the whole topic to collect some additional opinions because I´m actually writing one right now (not including general Illusions but slightly touching them in regards to the general Shadow sub-school). I don´t have the hybris to deem my opinion the only right one, tho.

So far, I´m only lacking the (color)rating of the individual options, some better formatting and the necessary example characters and maybe some pretty pictures.

The final results (meaning all material up to and including Ultimate Intrigue) are pretty surprising as to what is possible and how far the whole topic can be pushed, both mechanically and in regard to creative use of the spells themselves.

Summing up all the options, I´m actually convinced that right now, these are the spells that can be pushed the hardest with minimal investment for maximum result and a focus on them will certainly raise the power level of a campaign.

[Florian]

Although I agree with Psyren, I think Florian has a point.

Double-post, yay!

I, too, basically agree with Psyren, but I see the potential problems originating from his stance. I opted to make the whole thing a "supplemental guide", so you can opt to take the necessary options as a side-line to your regular build and even then, things are starting to fall apart pretty quick in regards to balance.
The power gain by focusing at least a bit on these options is... krass... and taking Psyrens stance into account will lead to accelerated power gain when combined with one or more additional dedicated builds.

So far, I ended up with a pretty easy to gain +5 CR/+4 CL/+9 vs SR at around the first level you can actually access serious Shadow-family spells and if Psyren is right, you can push that even onwards.
That simply can not be intended.

[Twrbs883]

Double-post, yay!

I, too, basically agree with Psyren, but I see the potential problems originating from his stance. I opted to make the whole thing a "supplemental guide", so you can opt to take the necessary options as a side-line to your regular build and even then, things are starting to fall apart pretty quick in regards to balance.
The power gain by focusing at least a bit on these options is... krass... and taking Psyrens stance into account will lead to accelerated power gain when combined with one or more additional dedicated builds.

So far, I ended up with a pretty easy to gain +5 CR/+4 CL/+9 vs SR at around the first level you can actually access serious Shadow-family spells and if Psyren is right, you can push that even onwards.
That simply can not be intended.

allright comment

[Deophaun]

However if they disbelieve it, then x% of the time it is able to stop their attacks and you would get to use your higher AC value, while the rest of the time it doesn't interfere and your AC is calculated as though you didn't have it up at all. That percentage would get rolled every time the disbelieving creature attacked you.
This is wrong, as mage armor targets the caster and has zero effect on the attacker. Even if the attacker disbelieves, it doesn't change the fact that the bonus is going to the caster. It's like with phantom steed: Just because you have successfully disbelieved the illusion the wizard is flying around on, it doesn't mean that the wizard is no longer flying.

The issue is finding a way for the caster to believe his own shadow conjuration, as normally he will automatically disbelieve with no save due to knowing what spell he cast. This can be done with the Chains of Disbelief ACF, which requires a save even in the face of proof, which the caster can then choose to fail.

And don't worry, Psyren can see this. There's a "view post" link prominently displayed on content you've blocked. He just likes to passive-aggressively announce that he's blocked me.

[Psyren]

My personal goal on this is to plumb the depths of possibilities (and failures) on this specific topic. I don´t want to (or need to) be "right", I just want to see the whole extend of potential pitfalls as well as solutions.

That´s why I deem it to be important to discover what range of interpretations on this matter can show up and if a common consensus could be formed based on that.

P.S. I think your Inbox is full.

Oh, I'm not trying to be "right" either - in fact, I've said repeatedly that both our readings are plausible ("it's a matter of interpretation" "neither are definitively wrong by RAW" etc.) What I was arguing against was your statement that "the RAW doesn't cover that." It absolutely does cover both readings, because it's an area of the rules that is vague, and those are bound to happen in a rules system this big and complicated. It's simply unclear right now how much of a spell is mimicked or copied by its shadow version.


Double-post, yay!

I, too, basically agree with Psyren, but I see the potential problems originating from his stance. I opted to make the whole thing a "supplemental guide", so you can opt to take the necessary options as a side-line to your regular build and even then, things are starting to fall apart pretty quick in regards to balance.
The power gain by focusing at least a bit on these options is... krass... and taking Psyrens stance into account will lead to accelerated power gain when combined with one or more additional dedicated builds.

So far, I ended up with a pretty easy to gain +5 CR/+4 CL/+9 vs SR at around the first level you can actually access serious Shadow-family spells and if Psyren is right, you can push that even onwards.
That simply can not be intended.

The thing is, I see far more problems arising from your stance. Your reading lets the caster use shadow spells to bypass alignment descriptors, or generate shadow conjurations that don't have to obey any of the rules conjurations follow. It also lets you use shadow enchantments to charm or compel mindless creatures. You then attempt to handwave this away by saying "a shadow spell that doesn't behave like the normal spell does would simply provoke disbelief" - yet in the same breath you're (rightly) pointing out that 100% reality is possible, rendering disbelief moot if optimized, and leaving spells that might as well belong to an entirely new school. And so while I agree that both our readings are possible until Paizo gets around to picking one, I'm sticking to my guns.

[Âmesang]

…this is why I decided to not have my last spellcaster use the shadow conjuration/evocation spells anymore. :smallfrown: I could just imagine these kinds of discussions bogging down playtime at my last group.

[Florian]

…this is why I decided to not have my last spellcaster use the shadow conjuration/evocation spells anymore. :smallfrown: I could just imagine these kinds of discussions bogging down playtime at my last group.

You´re right as that kind of discussions should not bog down actual gameplay, ever. That is why discussion like this happen at a "public space" so everyone else can spare the trouble.

But speaking Golarion and staying strictly rp, the stuff that is associated with Shadow-type of spells is simple too cool to miss.


Oh, I'm not trying to be "right" either - in fact, I've said repeatedly that both our readings are plausible ("it's a matter of interpretation" "neither are definitively wrong by RAW" etc.) What I was arguing against was your statement that "the RAW doesn't cover that." It absolutely does cover both readings, because it's an area of the rules that is vague, and those are bound to happen in a rules system this big and complicated. It's simply unclear right now how much of a spell is mimicked or copied by its shadow version.

The thing is, I see far more problems arising from your stance. Your reading lets the caster use shadow spells to bypass alignment descriptors, or generate shadow conjurations that don't have to obey any of the rules conjurations follow. It also lets you use shadow enchantments to charm or compel mindless creatures. You then attempt to handwave this away by saying "a shadow spell that doesn't behave like the normal spell does would simply provoke disbelief" - yet in the same breath you're (rightly) pointing out that 100% reality is possible, rendering disbelief moot if optimized, and leaving spells that might as well belong to an entirely new school. And so while I agree that both our readings are possible until Paizo gets around to picking one, I'm sticking to my guns.

Ok, you have to explain that one to me. Shadow Enchantment does explicitly behave like the original spell that s mimicked in regards to the target of the spell. You won´t be able to affect targets that are automatically immune to Enchantment spells because Shadow Enchantment tells you so.

[Psyren]

Ok, you have to explain that one to me. Shadow Enchantment does explicitly behave like the original spell that s mimicked in regards to the target of the spell. You won´t be able to affect targets that are automatically immune to Enchantment spells because Shadow Enchantment tells you so.

Shadow Enchantment uses the exact same "quasi-real, illusory version of X" clause as the other two. What makes you think it behaves differently than them, or they than it?

[Florian]

Shadow Enchantment uses the exact same "quasi-real, illusory version of X" clause as the other two. What makes you think it behaves differently than them, or they than it?

I think that focusing on the "quasi-real" part when the spell has actually failed distorts how the spell is handled.

We actually have to very good clues on how things work: Shadow Enchantment tells us that the spells are handled like regular enchantment despite being illusions, Shadow Transformation tells us that the spells are still illusions and not polymorph effects, despite mimicking them.

[Psyren]

I think that focusing on the "quasi-real" part when the spell has actually failed distorts how the spell is handled.

We actually have to very good clues on how things work: Shadow Enchantment tells us that the spells are handled like regular enchantment despite being illusions, Shadow Transformation tells us that the spells are still illusions and not polymorph effects, despite mimicking them.

Shadow Transformation? What spell is that? I can't seem to find it.

I'm starting to think there's some kind of translation issue going on here. The copies of the spells I'm reading use the exact same language except they drop in "enchantment" instead of "conjuration" etc. There's nothing to suggest Shadow Enchantment has some kind of specific handling that Shadow Conjuration doesn't or vice-versa.

[Florian]

Shadow Transformation? What spell is that? I can't seem to find it.

Shadow Spells section in Blood of Shadows


I'm starting to think there's some kind of translation issue going on here. The copies of the spells I'm reading use the exact same language except they drop in "enchantment" instead of "conjuration" etc. There's nothing to suggest Shadow Enchantment has some kind of specific handling that Shadow Conjuration doesn't or vice-versa.

That might be a peculiar thing of the german localized version. Our translators not only translate but stay in contact with the original authors and ask about the RAI instead of the original RAW.

[Psyren]

Shadow Spells section in Blood of Shadows

Oh, you mean this? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shadow-transmutation) Yeah, it has to be a translation issue, this text doesn't contain the line you describe.



That might be a peculiar thing of the german localized version. Our translators not only translate but stay in contact with the original authors and ask about the RAI instead of the original RAW.

Do you have any statements from the developers to support that? For all I know, said translators are just inserting their own interpretations of the material into your books to cut down on questions and just saying they got it officially.

[Slithery D]

Do you have any statements from the developers to support that? For all I know, said translators are just inserting their own interpretations of the material into your books to cut down on questions and just saying they got it officially.

Yeah, I'll pretend to be a German translator if this is the case rather than trying the FAQ system on the Paizo forums and hoping for an answer in 18 months.

[Antariuk]

I don't have a link or a source at hand, but I know as well that the publisher Ulisses, who's in charge of the German translation for Pathfinder, sometimes incorporates its own errata when releasing a Pathfinder book so that the final version deviates a bit from the English version. They've done this a few times by now, but normally that wouldn't lead to a different play experience than with a GM who is using English releases with the latest errata and/or FAQs in his games.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I'll pretend to be a German translator if this is the case rather than trying the FAQ system on the Paizo forums and hoping for an answer in 18 months.

I'd rather get the right answer more slowly than something some guy came up with, but maybe that's just me.


I don't have a link or a source at hand, but I know as well that the publisher Ulisses, who's in charge of the German translation for Pathfinder, sometimes incorporates its own errata when releasing a Pathfinder book so that the final version deviates a bit from the English version. They've done this a few times by now, but normally that wouldn't lead to a different play experience than with a GM who is using English releases with the latest errata and/or FAQs in his games.

Thought so - glad we cleared that up.

[Florian]

Yeah, I'll pretend to be a German translator if this is the case rather than trying the FAQ system on the Paizo forums and hoping for an answer in 18 months.

Judging by the delay the hardcover translations have, that could entirely be possibly. Most german localized books tend to show up after the original had its second printing.


I don't have a link or a source at hand, but I know as well that the publisher Ulisses, who's in charge of the German translation for Pathfinder, sometimes incorporates its own errata when releasing a Pathfinder book so that the final version deviates a bit from the English version. They've done this a few times by now, but normally that wouldn't lead to a different play experience than with a GM who is using English releases with the latest errata and/or FAQs in his games.

With the side-effect that relatively few discussions take place about wording and RAW-interpretation on the localized material. Looking at the PF-centric topics discussed at most german RPG boards, nearly all are concerned with how to play or gm, how to build or handle a sandbox, but relatively few go deeper into the mechanical side of things and there are very few requests for mechanical clarifications.

If you want to see a shocking amount of change between versions, making them next to incompatible, take a look at Shadowrun 5D and compare that to the original version. Here, the team in charge proudly announces that they know it better than the original creators and enact their changes accordingly.

... now enough derailing my own thread :D