Category talk:Assassin spells

Edition differences

Under PFRPG rules, Assassins no longer have a spell list. Should this be denoted in any way? Should the spell infobox have a field for rules set so that people can see why it lists a class that can't cast under the current rules? -- yoda8myhead 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been pondering this myself since I noticed a blackguard spell this morning. Listing which ruleset the spell was originally for takes us one step further to that dreaded area of crunchy articles. On the other hand, this would be an area where a rule change directly affects the setting, and is therefore "more OK". This would have been easier if Paizo would have done a Fate of Istus, or Die Vecna Die type product to subtly explain away the minor differences (not that those products were ever held up as shining examples of what and rpg product should be)... And I've once again gone WAY off track.

The fact is that if we say what version of the game a spell is from, we kind of need to do the same for crunchy NPC infoboxes. And then the question comes up about what to do with NPC infoboxes that have only fluff. I guess what I'm getting at is that it will be hard to apply the "edition tag" consistently. At he same time, I totally agree that we should have a way to indicate that these are "old" spells.

So in summary, Andrew will waffle back and forth until consensus is reached, and then claim that he thought it was a good idea all along. To that end, I'm interested in seeing what everybody else thinks. --Aeakett 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We do already have the rules set field in sourcebook infoboxes, even though it's not implemented in most. Perhaps this is enough? The nice thing about 3.5 and PFRPG being backwards compatible is that there's nothing saying that assassins with spells aren't canon. Or that Blackguards don't exist. It might not be something we need to directly address until Paizo does, but should other rules sets eventually come out, it may be necessary. For the time being, though, the basics of the systems are the same, with these few details changed. I think we may be overthinking it. In the end, we're working on cataloging an amorphous subject, and along the way we're going to run into some square pegs that need to fit in round holes. I'd rather not make a huge deal out of each of them, though. -- yoda8myhead 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Each book published to date will have either 3.5e rule or PFRPG rules. Unless a book is re-published with converted rules, or some sort of PFRPG "spell compendium" is released, the 3.5e version of the spell will still be the most current version of the spell. It doesn't really bother me if there's an (accurate) category of assassin/blackguard spells when assassins no longer cast spells, because the wiki focuses on fluff, not crunch. This might become more problematic in the future, for example if Paizo were to release a blackguard base class with a really wonky spell list, or something. The easiest solution may be to make a note on the [[Category:Assassin spells]] page, or remove them from the spell pages. Unless there's some consensus against it, I'll continue to add the categories to the spells RAW for the time being. --Goblin Witchlord 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think yoda8myhead is probably right, were overthinking it. We are concentrating on fluff, and the crunchy bits are just a peripheral courtesy... who cares if they are a bit untidy. As Goblin Witchlord says, it's not affecting the fluff right now, and we can deal with the issues when and if they arise. Let's just leave things as they are. Our audience is smart enough to know that assassins aren't casters in PFRPG, they're adults and deserve to be treated as such. At the same time, we're spinning our wheels discussing the minutiae of the differences between game editions that are essentially the same instead of working on actual content.

Sorry if that seemed a little rant-ish, it wasn't meant to be. I was way overthinking things earlier, which I'm prone to doing. Then after dinner I re-read my earlier post and had one of those "Oh ma'god, WHO CARES?" kind of moments. --Aeakett 23:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aeakett's final statement sums up my thoughts on the subject; the rules information simply isn't as important for our project as the spirit of the thing, the fluff of such spells. -- Heaven's Agent 05:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)