It’s only permanent if the target critically fails. Which puts all of the wording into question.
blindness/deafness is a 1e spell which is permanent no matter what
Ah! Whenever I’m talking to people about Pathfinder, it’s always 2e. Sorta like people saying D&D and meaning 5(.5)e.
same! I almost let it go assuming we were talking about a crit fail from 2e, but I had an itch in the back of my head telling me to check first
Y’all could have saved me the clicks if I had checked here first. I just went through this same thought process
D&D 3.5:
Blindness/Deafness Necromancy Level: Brd 2, Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One living creature Duration: Permanent (D) Saving Throw: Fortitude negates Spell Resistance: Yes
You pretty much destroy their eyes or ears. There’s a spell that undoes the damage
AFAIK The (D) behind „permanent“ means „dismissable“ so the caster can end it any time they want.
Edit: Found a reference:
That is correct
Its not D&D thougu
Dnd 3.5 has a lot, like 80%, rules overlap with pf1e. Pathfinder was a fork of the game system, basically
Pathfinder 1e is just reskinned D&D 3.5 D&D went stupid and opened the 3.5 game license.
So can wizards quietly cast spells in a stealthy manner? Want to know if I ever get isekai’d into a pathfinder world.
Conceal Spell
Through sheer mental effort, you can simplify the incantations and gestures needed to spellcast, leaving them barely noticeable. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell, the spell gains the subtle trait, hiding the shining runes, sparks of magic, and other manifestations that would usually give away your spellcasting. The trait hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.
Silent Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
Doesn’t work for Bard spells, although they have a way to disguise theirs:
Melodious Spell
You subtly weave your spellcasting into a performance. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell, the spell gains the subtle trait, hiding the shining runes, sparks of magic, and other manifestations that would usually give away your spellcasting. The trait hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.
i’m curious how the fuck people would imagine hiding the effects of invisibility to work
Through sheer mental effort
Guess I’ll just roll for Willpower :P
There’s always a feat for that!
Sensory Deprivation Wizard
Come on, Wiz. You have Glitterdust and Stinking Cloud for crying out loud!
The final game of my favorite series of all time, Quest for Glory 5, you get a shrink spell. It does exactly what you think: It shrinks your enemies down to 50% their original size… and then when you cast it again, they flee when they get too small to do anything to you… and you can still cast it on them as they flee and shrink them down further and further.
I… just never used the spell. I mean I did want to maximize all of the skill level of my spells (but there is no discernable effect to the skill of that particular spell). It just felt really needlessly cruel. I imagined the enemies going on a Honey I Shrunk the Kids type adventure, only it is much shorter and extremely brutal…
what’s the spell called i need it
It’s Blindness/Deafness which has a duration of permanent (albeit dismissible by the caster)
Why would a DM be involved in a Pathfinder game though?
Because most people are not so anal retentive as to give a damn about Hasbros trademarks.
Eh, it’s part anal retention, part joke, part not wanting to give WotC the brand recognition.
Then you should use it as generically as possible so that the trademark becomes unenforceable. Brand dilution is a thing, it’s why Alphabet doesn’t want you using “google” as a verb, and why your mom was actually based for calling your Playstation “a nintendo”.
See my other reply in this comment chain regarding this sentiment.
okay but know that the effect of that is that is to help protect Hasbro’s trademark. it’s what they want from you.
I just don’t agree with that reverse psychology logic my friend. It would be equally worthless if no one used it.
The Pathfinder video games are directly from the Pathfinder tabletop game, which is basically a different copyright of D&D. They would need a DM. I’m not sure what else you could be thinking.
Edit: DM = Dungeon Master (D&D), GM = Game Master (Pathfinder), as this user pointed out below.
They’re called GMs in Pathfinder ;)
Dungeon Master is a DnD term, and trademarked by WotC.
+1 Hate for intellectual property law
Breaking Hasbro IP is chaotic good though
I’d rather not give them the recognition, and Pathfinder ditched alignment anyway.
It is actually a good strategy to dilute the term Dungeon Master into a general phrase, because that means Hasbro can’t enforce their copyright. For instance, Aspirin is a brand name, but it’s such a generic term that anyone in the US can call their product Aspirin without risk.
We’ll have to agree to disagree! I prefer using the game’s defined term, or Game Master for general usage.
Edited to add, you TTRPG players sure are a contentious people.
Don’t you mean “us TTRPG people”? You’re also a part of this
Well, when the players enter a dungeon, it becomes the Dungeon Master.
Everywhere else, it can be a Game Master. Inside the game of course. If they go outside the game then… well, then that’s just another guy in theoutside.
Oh I completely forgot about that distinction XD
GM is also used in GURPS, but the 5 guys here who have used it already know that.
And if they want someone to join them, they can always DM me.
Pathfinder is very different mechanically to dnd. It’s like saying settlers of catan is a different copyright of carcassonne.
Pathfinder is very different mechanically to dnd
Is it though?
Depends on which edition of DnD, frankly. Pathfinder 1e and 2e are quite mechanically different, as many DnD editions are to each other.
I need to read up on Pathfinder 2e.
I know the “joke” was that 1e was basically D&D 3.75… which was a bit too powergamey for my tastes, so I never even looked at 2e…
It’s still a d20 system but it is quite a bit different.
I’ve just not had the excuse to look yet, my life is currently a bit too chaotic for a regular game, let alone one in another new system…
I am working on an open game setting over at https://ttrpg.network/c/Canyonlands but don’t have anything like a plan for actually running a game.
I guess it’s all relative. I’ve played a handful of different TTRPGs, and d&d and pathfinder are much closer to each other than to things like VtM or BitD.
2e ended up a lot more aproachable, you can no longer accidentally create a completely useless character.
Pathfinder is closer to D&D than most other TTRPGs (not counting direct D&D derivatives)
True, but anyone who thinks it’s a drag and drop replacement is in for a headache
You might want to explain the joke, I thought you were just an arse before reading the replies :D
Nobody liked that
