Forum

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Curious: whats rationale for disallowing Ritual AND Psychic spells?
thom
Nakomé (Clanless)
Posts: 6
Post Curious: whats rationale for disallowing Ritual AND Psychic spells?
on: November 6, 2015, 16:54

As the title sez, since I know my PCs are gonna ask, 😉
Why can't a character learn both types of spells?
jeffdee
Administrator
Posts: 427
Post Re: Curious: whats rationale for disallowing Ritual AND Psychic spells?
on: November 6, 2015, 22:48

They CAN learn both types of spells, as long as they meet the minimum attribute requirements. It's not even that difficult. See the table 3.8.5 Magical Aptitude on p. 30.

-Jeff
thom
Nakomé (Clanless)
Posts: 6
Post Re: Curious: whats rationale for disallowing Ritual AND Psychic spells?
on: November 7, 2015, 10:46

Aha! I misinterpreted the text in 12.2.1
"Characters who qualify..." to mean a PC couldn't do both. 😮
Thanks again! One of my PCs will be quite happy about this! 😉

kldonnelly
Nakomé (Clanless)
Posts: 6
Post Re: Curious: whats rationale for disallowing Ritual AND Psychic spells?
on: October 30, 2016, 11:28

Resurrecting an old thread to keep this discussion in one place:
I'm confused by the statement in the book: "Characters who qualify individually for Ritual and Psychic magic, but not for both, must choose to be trained in one or the other." No one can meet this statement. If you qualify individually for the two types, you automatically qualify for both. I've just been using what the chart says (INTL of 10 and PSYC of 8 as minimums if you want to do both), but wanted to make sure there's nothing I'm missing.
jeffdee
Administrator
Posts: 427
Post Re: Curious: whats rationale for disallowing Ritual AND Psychic spells?
on: November 3, 2016, 19:41

"If you qualify individually for the two types, you automatically qualify for both."

You are correct! There was a point during the design where that was possible, but apparently we changed it without removing the caveat. We'll add that to the Errata page. Thanks for the correction!

-Jeff
Pages: [1]
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.33.2 ; Page loaded in: 0.033 seconds.